Skepticism

EVENTS

The not-so-Amazing Atheist self-immolates

There’s a youtuber who goes by the name “the amazing atheist” who I’ve never cared much for — he’s a raving MRA who ought to change his name to “the asinine atheist” — who has just flamed out on reddit in a revealing long angry thread. I don’t recommend it. It’s very ugly. The only virtue is that this already marginal hater on the fringes of atheism just made himself even less relevant, and we can all wash our hands of him now.

I’ll put a few highlights from his rants below the fold; these aren’t really surprising, since this kind of thing has always been part of his youtube schtick, but you might want to brace yourself for the virulence. He really, really hates uppity feminist women, and he finds threats of rape to be an appropriate response to them. This whole affair was prompted by a poster on reddit going by the nickname “ICumWhenIKillMen”, which I find reprehensible too, but it in no way justifies the eruption of even greater hatred that this “amazing” atheist (going by the name terroja or TJ) spouts.

I will make you a rape victim if you don’t fuck off.

Yeah. Well, you deserved it. So, fuck you. I hope it happens again soon. I’m tired of being treated like shit by you mean little cunts and then you using your rape as an excuse. Fuck you. I think we should give the guy who raped you a medal. I hope you fucking drown in rape semen, you ugly, mean-spirited cow. Actually, I don’t believe you were ever raped! What man would be tasteless enough to stick his dick into a human cesspool like you? Nice gif of a turd going into my mouth. Is that kind of like the way that rapists dick went in your pussy? Or did he use your asshole? Or was it both? Maybe you should think about it really hard for the next few hours. Relive it as much as possible. You know? Try to recall: was it my pussy or my ass?

I’m going to rape you with my fist.

BTW, you have to admit, when I told you that I hope you drown in rape semen, you got a little wet, didn’t you? It’s okay. We’re friends now. You can share.

Fuck you, liar. All night you douches have tried to shit on me and tear me down. Then when I do the same it’s like, “Whoa man! That’s too far. Calm down.” No. Fuck you. Go get raped in whatever orifice you have to get fucking raped in. I am sick of your shit. I regret nothing.

Nasty piece of work, isn’t he? To top it all off, after a long night of rage, he makes a youtube video whining about arguing with feminists. You don’t need to watch it, it’s ugly and pathetic, since fortunately someone else made a transcript. I do want to seriously address one part of it, though, because it’s a claim I often seen these freaked-out misogynist kooks make.

Let me just clue you in, folks, any fucking belief system or belief structure, well any belief structure or belief system is just WRONG to begin with. I mean, fucking think for yourself, don't just join some stupid fucking group. But- but- ESPECIALLY the ones that try to control your sexuality and that tell you that the things you desire are wrong and shameful.

If that starts to happen, even if everything up until that point seemed pretty cool, that's when you gotta get the fuck out. When you start hearing like, "Oh yeah, and by the way, those things you like to do sexually? Those are aaaalll wrong. You can't be doing that anymore." 'Cause that's really how any fucking, uhm, ideology controls, people.

And why do you think pretty much every religion in existence tries to control your sexuality? Why do you think, that, the number one thing that destroys a politician is, an extramarital affair. Or if you're Republican, you know, you suck a dick in the bathroom or something.

I mean, it's always about sexuality. It's always about controlling people's sexuality. Because, y'know, that's, err, that's like one of the big, I mean, y'know, if you're gonna look at like Freudian psychology, which is like outdated and everything. But still, I think Freud had a point when he said that the two major driving factors in human life are sex and death.

So if you'd control sex, you'd pretty much control a motherfucker. And that's like the two areas that, y'know, Religion has gone after, sex and death. It's like, "Oh, you can't have this kinda sex. And then, when you die, you get to go to a magical sky palace."

And y'know feminism doesn't really do much to control the death thing, but they sure love controlling fucking human sexuality.

That’s a lot of bullshit.

The feminism I embrace is sex-positive. It includes heterosexual men and women, homosexual men and women, trans men and women, and every kink and twist you can imagine. It is not about controlling your sexuality, but liberating it — it most definitely does not say “you can’t have this kinda sex”. It does not judge your sexual behaviors and say “Those are aaaalll wrong.” The Amazing Atheist/terroja/TJ is just lying when he claims that’s what’s going on.

Because here’s the thing: you have freedom to exercise your sexuality, but that does not mean you get to impose your sexuality on others. If, for example, your kink is peeing on women, and you’ve got a partner whose kink is being peed upon, I’m happy for the two of you, I hope you have a grand time, but please, if I ask you not to share your stories with me because I find it unpleasant, respect my wishes…and do not imagine for one second that your desire to pee on someone trumps their desire to not be peed on. I’m not going to judge you or tell you what you can and can’t do in your bedroom unless you’re trying to force it on someone who is unwilling. That’s the hard and fast line you don’t get to cross.

Rape is a fundamental violation of that basic principle of autonomy and respect for other people’s desires. This guy jokes about rape, threatens rape, and doesn’t seem to recognize the line between consensual sexual activities and the violent act of rape. He’s amazingly self-centered; he complains bitterly about the limits on his desires to put his penis where ever he wants as an awful example of feminism controlling his sexuality, completely oblivious to the fact that what he ultimately wants to do is control other people’s sexuality, putting it in service to his fantasies.

That moral blindness is standard MRA egocentrism; the whole premise of the pick-up artist is to find a way to manipulate other people into doing their sexual bidding.

The other element you’ll often see in these guys is rage at women’s sexuality: they get extremely upset at the idea of the object of their desires making independent sexual choices. Women are supposed to be either chaste and not being sexy at all, or they must submit to the man’s desires, servicing the man’s sexual needs by whatever methods the man dictates. A woman cheerfully flirting with her choice of a partner? She’s a hypocrite (because feminists are supposed to hate sex!) and she’s a ball-buster (because she’s not having sex with me!) and if ever she said “no” to a man, she must be demeaned and detested. Or possibly raped, just to teach her a lesson.

The only control issue here is who gets to control sex: do women get to be in complete charge of their own sexuality, or should they hand it over to the whims of men? And in their answers to that question, MRAs like this TJ jerk are fundamentally allying themselves with the patriarchal religions of Abraham.

I knew it was inevitable the day that I started talking about feminism that one day, PZ Meyers would open his gob to mount some manner of lazy and lackluster attack against me. He is a radical feminist who once claimed that when it came to gender issues men just need to “shut up and listen to women.” That’s a direct quote, by the way. He really said “shut up and listen to women.” Men, in his opinion, have nothing useful to say on gender issues.

Yes, that quote is here. That last sentence? More bullshit. Of course men have useful things to say on gender issues — but you have to make room for women to speak, too. It’s amazing how often men, especially the obtuse, blithely patriarchal men, are unable to simply listen to women for two minutes without overriding them.

He has more excuses.

What PZ Meyers may not be aware of is that my words were promulgated by a conversation with a male feminist who told me in no uncertain terms that looking at females sexually was wrong. It’s wrong to follow your natural imperative to note the sexual attractiveness of a woman in your presence, because that makes women feel bad. That’s nonsense. I am a biological organism that got here because my ancestors loved to fuck, and fucking starts with lust. I’m glad that PZ Meyers doesn’t take issue with this, but when he claims that ALL feminists are sex positive, he’s simply being disingenuous. There are plenty of feminists, many of whom I have addressed in the past, who are virulently anti-porn and anti-male sexuality. Meyer’s ignores this at the peril of his credibility.

First of all, nowhere have I ever claimed that all feminists are sex positive; some feminists are assholes, just like some atheists (case in point: The “Amazing” Atheist) are total flaming jerkwads.

But also, I really, really despise the naturalistic fallacy. Why, yes, some of my ancestors were stoat-like mammaloids one step beyond a reptile, and the males would wrestle the females down and ejaculate into their reproductive tracts whether the female was cooperative or not. I wouldn’t even be surprised to learn that some significant fraction of my human ancestors were locked in loveless marriages, or even brought about some of their progeny by rape. These facts do not justify stoat-like fucking or rape.

Lust and fucking are great, but that also does not imply that they should be the boundaries of our relationships — I lust after my wife all the time, but I also recognize her as a fellow sapient human being with her own interests. I also meet women all the time and don’t have sex with them — in fact, no matter how much of a Lothario you might be, the fraction of women with whom you will have sex is infinitesimally small. You are a stunted and impoverished human being if you look at half the population of the planet only through the lens of lust and sex; that’s probably the least important perspective on human relationships that you’ve got.

Of course you can notice that a member of the sex you find stimulating is attractive; that’s not the issue. It’s the sad wankers who meet strange women and think “great rack!” instead of “I wonder what she’s got to say?” that have the real problem.

And then he completely misses the mark.

Here’s an M. Night Shymalan style twist for you, PZ. Something that shatters your narrative of me as a would-be rapist just looking for the right bush to hide in. I’m a submissive. As in, I like to be dominated. Spanked. Humiliated. As in, the exact opposite of what you’re portaying me as.

So? I had no assumptions at all about his sexual habits. He seems to be obsessed with his own gratification, and there’s nothing about that that is incompatible with being a submissive. Although the fact that he likes to be humiliated does explain much about his behavior on the internet.

Also, does he even realize that saying you’ve got a “Shyamalan twist” to your story just means you’ve got a really shitty gimmick?

Wow, I knew AmazingAtheist had issues, but even by his standards those comments are pretty misogynist and all around messed up.

There’s another noteworthy thing about the comment thread. There’s a heavy amount of No True Scotsman going on in that subthread where people try to argue that he isn’t really an atheist if he has those views. This doesn’t follow. Nothing in the definition of being an atheist says you can’t be a terrible person.

Yes — he is definitely an atheist, and he is also a terrible human being.

You can find more terrible human beings commenting on his facebook page. Here’s an example of his supporters:

The bitch kinda deserved it and it was pretty funny, but next time, maybe work your way up to the “You deserve to get raped again” angle?And none of those faggots obviously watch any of your videos, even though they say they have.

Or this one:

By the sound of things a lot of these idiots need a good raping, men and women. Fucking hell get over yourselves ohh dear the nasty man said a nasty thing we must harass him… If you watch TJ’s videos he is a much bigger believer in women and men being equal than any feminist.

That asshole… He used to be on TGWTG, a collective of internet reviewers. I don’t think he is anymore and good riddance. Basically, he’s just a disgusting troll. He gets hype only by pissing people off and says shit for shock value. Forgetting he exists is the best thing you can do. Heck I think he even has a “sex video” where he fucks a teddy bear or something along those lines. Shock value, that’s all there is to it. And not the good kind of shock value.

Unfortunately he gives all of us atheists a bad name. This is the kind of person our opponents say we are.

Many atheists and skeptics seem to have a blind spot, and clearly, for the “Amazing Atheist”, it’s women’s rights. I’ve been following him on YouTube long enough to know this, but I have to say, that this level of aggression surprised me. Guess it’s time to unsubscribe. Too bad, his rants on politics can be quite amusing, but this goes beyond the pale.

“The only control issue here is who gets to control sex:…”
In every successful society a man will not touch a woman without her permission. Seems women are in charge of sexuality. Seems this is healthy and necessary.

Well, there is one kind of sex that feminism says you can’t have: non-consensual sex. But you hardly have to be a feminist to be on board with that idea. And if you can’t agree with that simple principle, then you’re disqualified as a reasonable human being.

Basically, he’s just a disgusting troll. He gets hype only by pissing people off and says shit for shock value.

So, a hack.

Amazing how often these self-proclaimed individualistic thinkers sound exactly like shitty comedians who can’t write good material. I mean, Jeff Dunham’s bigoted and reactionary `”Achmed the Dead Terrorist” bit is one of the most watched videos on YouTube. Clearly, nothing screams “I’m an independent thinker” like the wildly popular low-hanging fruit of shock bullshit.

In every successful* society a manperson will not touch a womananother person without herthat person’s permission. Seems womenpeopleareshould be in charge of their own sexuality. Seems this is healthy and necessary.

I’ve seen one video from this guy about a TV talk show with a bunch of women (not The View but something like it) and they were talking about a case where a guy asked a woman for a divorce, so she responded by cutting off his penis and throwing it down a garbage disposal. So he shows the clip and the women really were laughing hysterically about this. So the point he made was, could you imagine if that was ever 5 guys talking about a girl who had her clitorus chopped off because she asked for a divorce and laughing hysterically about it?

Well, it was kind of an angry rant but I found myself completely agreeing with him. I’ve never heard or seen that clip at any other time so I’m guessing any outrage was limited.

This on the other hand is reprehensible. I’m not really sure if he’s always had this sort of rage and it’s just been building up or something in particular set him off. Either way, it certainly looks like he’s gone off the deep end.

Hey, thanks for mentioning this PZ. Just thought I’d mention, if you actually read ICumWhenIKillMen’s Posts, her screen name is more or less the exact same sarcasm my old “Shrieking Harpy of Doom” ending was. It’s a way of de-fanging anti-feminist jackassery.

Another comparison: The baby cookout jokes that at least used to be popular here (I haven’t been reading Pharyngula much). I mean yeah, that’d be really terrible if we did, but it’s a gross exaggeration of a stupid claim to show just how stupid it is.

An occasion in which “deep rifts” is perfectly valid. TAA and his supporters need to be ostracised by all decent atheists. Shit, he needs to be ostracised by all decent people, until such a time as he completely and sincerely learns that the way he’s acting is wrong. Wonder if that time will ever come?

There was a time when I thought the Amazing Atheist’s over the top Youtube rants were amusing, but they became tiresome and repetitive rather quickly, just like the rants of all trolls do. And that’s really all he is, a troll. He’s in it for all the attention he can get for himself. The best punishment you can inflict on someone like that is to forget about him.

I have to say PZ that this is the first blog post you’ve written on the feminism in atheism debate which I 100% agree with. I still object to you using the sexist term ‘MRA’, but you’re bang on the money with this guy. I can’t believe anyone would say to a woman (or a man, or anyone for that matter) “I hope you get raped” or words to that effect. It is evil. I wish he was on the other side because I don’t feel comfortable being an atheist alongside this guy.

crecy
You mean, threatening people with rape, claiming that they deserved to be raped and that it should happen again soon is no problem and normal discussion behaviour?

Remind me never to meet you in real life.
And thanx a again for proving to us hypersensitive withering flowers that there actually is NO level of misogyny that will not be commented with “so what, get over yourselves”

Nonono, ad hominem is to point at an aspect of your character and then say we should pay no attention to you because of that flaw in your character (Without engaging the argument at all).

I made an argument, although you are too stupid to see it, or are unwilling to acknowledge it. I pointed out that the username “ICumWhenIKillMen” is a deliberate exaggeration of stupid shit said about feminists, not an actual declaration of things that happened. I then insulted you. That’s just an insult, not ad hom.

This too, is an insult: You are as awful at logical arguments as every damn theist who’s come on here and been mocked, claiming that the mockery was ad hom when it was done after taking down an argument.

If you cant see the difference between raping children and making jokes about roasting babies then i dont think i can have a constructive discussion with you

You’re not the brightest bulb in the box. I’d make a flowchart but I suck at making flowcharts.

The atheist community has horrid shit said about it by theists of all stripes; often, those claims are focused on the supposed demonic-ness of atheists. A common joke among atheists, using these horrid claims, is to refer to baby cook-offs as a gross exaggeration. None of us would do it (I fucking hope), but it’s a way to turn the Majority’s jackassery into a source of amusement, rather than stewing in it.

The feminist community has horrid shit said about it by anti-feminists of all stripes; often, those claims are focused on the supposed hatred of men that feminists have. A common joke, using these horrid claims, is to refer to those idiotic claims with gross exaggeration. None of us would do it, but it’s a way to turn the Majority’s jackassery into a source of amusement, rather than stewing in it.

That may be true. But the idea behind it is that real arguements should be made when confronting a person with a different point of view. Rather than just insinuating that the other person is and idiot or stupid and claiming victory.

I understand that that concept might be hard for both of you to grasp…

Not an ad hom. (And a common sign that the poster making this claim is a loon.) Look up ad hominen. UNDERSTAND what it means. Then come back.

When making an argument, it is generally recommended to learn a bit about the terms involved, so you use them properly. Lest you expose yourself to be a fool (or be mistaken for the loons who do it deliberately even when they know it is invalid, due to being rankly intellectually dishonest.)

@44 I don’t see how MRA is a sexist term when said MRAs refer to themselves as such.

Yes it’s unfortunate that the group professing to be Mens Rights Activists a) do fuck all activism and b) don’t care about men all that much either. Or at least not unless it fits their narrow definition of man.

Ok, I haven’t been following the MRA developments that closely since Elevatorgate so I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt. I don’t want that word applied to anyone who disagrees with the Rebecca Watson/Skepchick view of the issue, but for arrogant cretinous misanthropes like TAA it seems perfectly applicable.

A common joke among atheists, using these horrid claims, is to refer to baby cook-offs as a gross exaggeration.

So, the nick ICumWhenIKillMen would be similar to me changing my ‘nym to “nigelTheBold, 2011 Baby BBQ Cookoff Champion.” That would be fair, since I am. The secret is in the sauce. And if I might quote the judges, “The apple in the mouth was an excellent, down-home touch.”

I don’t want that word applied to anyone who disagrees with the Rebecca Watson/Skepchick view of the issue, but for arrogant cretinous misanthropes like TAA it seems perfectly applicable.

At least half, if not more, of those MRAs “disagreeing” with Rebecca Watson, were demonstrably exactly the same, in word and deed and degree, down to the very same choice of phrasing, as TAA. I see little difference of any kind between them.

If the term MRA applies to one, it applies to the other. If an Macintosh is an apple, so is a Spartan. And a Royal Gala.

Yes it’s unfortunate that the group professing to be Mens Rights Activists a) do fuck all activism and b) don’t care about men all that much either. Or at least not unless it fits their narrow definition of man.

Their definition of man is the the first two letters of the appellation.

The screenshots in the Atheist Experience post contain a lot of him disbelieving that trauma triggers are an actual thing. Is it possible that it is a factual matter requiring skeptical thought?

Skeptical thought is required in all things. Denialism is not appreciated. Now, I am at best very very very poorly educated on “triggering” but from what I gather there seems to be an analogous affect to PTSD? Fun fact, you apparently cannot be “cured” of PTSD, it just gets better/more manageable. People with PTSD will be triggered by stimulus and apparently suddenly feel flashes of symptoms again. It happens. There is a traumatic experience for me that when I think about or am reminded about it, I’m back there experiencing it. It’s gotten less frequent as there’s more distance between then and now, but it still happens and damn it it still feels just as real as the day it happened. And my experience is incredibly small potatoes compared to being raped or even other tramaus. Yes I do believe triggering is 100% real and that it is something so obvious and established in psychology that questioning it amounts to denial-ism.

And it’s all moot because even as he denies triggering, he SEEKS TO TRIGGER SOMEONE. He seeks to intentionally use the emotional impact of a past experience to belittle and torment someone. This is just like the goddamn neo-nazis who deny the holocaust, yet taunt people about it at every opportunity.

Let me repeat for emphasis: HE FUCKING THOUGHT IT WAS OK TO USE SOMEONE’S RAPE AS A WEAPON AGAINST THEM.

Well well well. Just when I thought the wimmin-hatin’ element in atheist circles couldn’t get any worse, after some of the comments we saw about Elevatorgate, this asshole comes along and proves me spectacularly wrong. I guess there really is no lower limit for these people.

To just Godwin the thread, complaining about MRA’s being used as a sexist term is like complaining “What the hell? There’s like no socialism in this National Socialism Party!? Why are we using National Socialism as a offensive term!?”

And thanx a again for proving to us hypersensitive withering flowers that there actually is NO level of misogyny that will not be commented with “so what, get over yourselves”

Well, there is just one more level that has not yet been demonstrated. That would be if TAA had actually gone out and committed a rape, then posted the video, and got patted on the back for it in the comment thread….

Admittedly Men’s Rights Activists aren’t so bad in and of themselves. I agree with some issues regarding men’s rights (say, family leave allowance, custody hearings, usw.) It’s those MRAs who take it to another level that I can’t stand, and who we probably should call Male Supremacists.

Always thought this guy was a self important gobshite. Glad to see the skeptic community rip him to shreds. I remember another video he did calling gay teens who committed suicide “cowards”. It was basically the typical “I got bullied and I just sucked it up and took it like a man!” bullshit. He is very much lacking in empathy and his crowd of groupies are equally hate filled and willfully ignorant.

What he said to this person was fucking unforgivable and when he got called out on it, made a self pitying video crying that he was being oppressed by the wicked feminazis. The levels of narcissism are off the charts on this guy. The phrase “walk a day in my shoes” is utterly foreign to this cretin.

The screenshots in the Atheist Experience post contain a lot of him disbelieving that trauma triggers are an actual thing. Is it possible that it is a factual matter requiring skeptical thought?

Trauma triggers are a wholly subjective phenomenon. Like pain. There is no objective test that can measure it without resorting to self-report.

If a person says he is in pain, then he is in pain. End of story. Period. That is all the evidence required. And the only evidence possible. Unless you can actually produce objective evidence of deliberate lying, the null hypothesis stands. You either trust, or you don’t.

If a person says it is a trauma trigger, then it is a trauma trigger. End of story. Period.

And none of those faggots obviously watch any of your videos, even though they say they have.

Wrong. I’ve watched some of his videos. It’s been really hard to take anything he says seriously. Sometimes I get the feeling that he is all poe all the time, like he has dedicated his online life to poeing. But even a poe should know when to stop. (Not that he is a poe, but if he is, too fucking bad.)

(In case you need a hint, try “people who argue for things like family leave allowance for men whose wives are pregnant / have had children, fair hearings in child custody battles, issues related to men’s health and psychology, usw.”)

I’m not sure if I was the only one who understood this post or the only one who misunderstood it.

The screenshots in the Atheist Experience post contain a lot of him disbelieving that trauma triggers are an actual thing. Is it possible that it is a factual matter requiring skeptical thought?

I thought they were saying the very phenomena of trauma triggers was a matter ‘requiring skeptical thought, and everyone else seems to think it’s taken as a given that no intelligent person would doubt them, and seems to be focused on whether an individual action is triggering.

Am I the only one with insufficient faith in humanity to assume that the skeptic community wouldn’t pull the whole “QUESTION EVERYTHING” on something that was already researched and answered?

I thought they were saying the very phenomena of trauma triggers was a matter ‘requiring skeptical thought, and everyone else seems to think it’s taken as a given that no intelligent person would doubt them, and seems to be focused on whether an individual action is triggering.

That’s how I read it.

This is common in the ‘skeptic’ community. The Straw Vulcan model of white heteros who insist that their response is the sketpical/rational one and others are just being irrational. Note the irrationality of trying to force a social emotional species into acting as if contra-causal freewill exists.

No one I can point to specifically, since it’s not a big issue on my mind. I’m sure there are some men out there whose activism entails the legitimate issues that men do face in society, without at the same time being a reprehensible asshole when it comes to the rights of women.

Also, “child custody” is a nonissue in the USA, at least; most dudes get the demands they specifically ask for. Most don’t *want* primary custody. Further, the facts of the case aren’t usually on the side of someone who does; remember that women do most of the childcare in this country. If you want to change how this works, you need to go after the dudes who mock other dudes for taking care of your kids, and completely erase stupid concepts like that of a father ‘babysitting’ his own kids (Because it’s hte mother’s job to watch them, and he’s doing her a favor this time).

I don’t think I’ve ever seen an MRA make a valid claim to an actual societal problem that they had a valid solution to (Since they’re so frequently stupid things like ‘FORCE WOMEN BACK INTO THE KITCHEN’, in as many words or less)

To be fair, there are many many types of feminisms. Not sure why The Amazing Atheist does not readily distinguish between these.

There are strands of feminism that are very anti-trans. There are strands that believe certain sex acts are inherently sexist, despite the context. And that when women do sex act X and claim to love it, it is merely because they are too inundated with patriarchal assumptions to realize they are being coerced.

That said, I’m very fond of the sex-positive varieties, and varieties that readily welcome everyone and do not dismiss their experiences as ignorance. I’m particularly fond of the schools of thought that welcome trans folk and sex workers and people into BDSM etc.

That said, the Amazing Atheist’s actions were abhorrent and cringe worthy. They make me sad. :(

No one I can point to specifically, since it’s not a big issue on my mind. I’m sure there are some men out there whose activism entails the legitimate issues that men do face in society, without at the same time being a reprehensible asshole when it comes to the rights of women.

Well then why on earth would we defend the Men Rights Activist movement if we can’t actually find a non-reprehensible member of it?

I saw one on the blog – who for a short while actually was discussing some legitimate issues that men face (notably the child custody thing, but also some concerns of men’s physical and psychological health) but then lost my vote when he went into the whole “and men should be given equal choosing whether their girlfriend/wife/lover/fiancee can have an abortion.”

There are likely (medium confidence cause the jury’s still out on whether one exists, TBH) men out there like I mentioned, with activism towards legitimate social issues. Ones whose arguments don’t end up boiling down to “and women should be back in the kitchen.” I think the majority of people who do work to fix men’s issues regarding health, psychology, and the problems with the patriarchy tend to be feminists…

There are likely (medium confidence cause the jury’s still out on whether one exists, TBH) men out there like I mentioned, with activism towards legitimate social issues. Ones whose arguments don’t end up boiling down to “and women should be back in the kitchen.” I think the majority of people who do work to fix men’s issues regarding health, psychology, and the problems with the patriarchy tend to be feminists…

Weird how that works out?

Right, so I don’t see why we should respect or legitimize the MRA title anymore than we should all the psuedo fascist and anarchcapitalist libertarians

run circlejerk_attack.exe
I agree with what TJ said. Meyers is using out-of context comments and misjudging them to make him seem like a terrible person. Even so, he has legitimate things to say that are being waved away because people don’t like them. That is all.

I made an argument, although you are too stupid to see it, or are unwilling to acknowledge it. I pointed out that the username “ICumWhenIKillMen” is a deliberate exaggeration of stupid shit said about feminists, not an actual declaration of things that happened. I then insulted you. That’s just an insult, not ad hom.

But you never did make that arguement, unless somehow your message got eaten up. All i saw was..

“Just like it’s hypocrtical to make baby roast jokes while complaining about the catholic church’s sheltering of child rape, AMIRITE!?”

Are you saying that the above post suficed to make your “point”?

As for checking out the reddit atheism pages, i just dont have time for that right now.

So you quite willingly justify a name like “icumwhenikillmen” as being a playful and fun screename.

I have to admit, I almost joined up with MRAs on the nascent web. I did not get favorable custody in my divorce from my daughter’s mother. I got two weeks a year — because a mother is a better caregiver than a father. Seriously.

But that was handled in Eastern Oregon, which has a fairly large fundamentalist population. From the actions of the judge, I think he was informed I was an atheist, though I have no way to prove it. At the time, I was more than just a little pissed. Also, I had no clue how to represent myself, and I couldn’t afford a lawyer, being a poor college student.

It kinda sucked.

My general laziness eventually interfered with my involvement with the group, though. Now I’m very glad.

I saw one on the blog – who for a short while actually was discussing some legitimate issues that men face (notably the child custody thing, but also some concerns of men’s physical and psychological health) but then lost my vote when he went into the whole “and men should be given equal choosing whether their girlfriend/wife/lover/fiancee can have an abortion.”

Child custody is a well-worn hobbyhorse of MRAs, which is why I’m familiar with its wrongness. The others may be valid, but if the past informs the future there’s serious factual errors that underlie the premises.

The big problem with trauma triggers is that it’s a very wide net. Now if you know you’re going to have a readership base which might be vulnerable to something specific, then it’s a good idea to point it out, but the demands for absolutism regarding triggers generally go too far. (namely you have to trigger identify everything)

That generally the absolutists ignore my personal triggers (that is, social politicking)..it’s not hypocritical. I see it as an unfair throwing of weight around among potential allies.

I’m sure there are some men out there whose activism entails the legitimate issues that men do face in society, without at the same time being a reprehensible asshole when it comes to the rights of women.

Honestly? Those men are generally feminists. For example, it is a problem that men often don’t get any kind of parental leave, but I honestly have yet to meet a feminist who would disagree with that statement. (I’m sure one exists, but it’s definitely not the majority view.) The patriarchy does hurt men too, and dismantling it benefits all genders.

People who gather under MRA headings tend to only focus on the issues that affect men while denying the issues that affect women and often blame women for the problems that do affect men instead of the patriarchy.

The big problem with trauma triggers is that it’s a very wide net. Now if you know you’re going to have a readership base which might be vulnerable to something specific, then it’s a good idea to point it out, but the demands for absolutism regarding triggers generally go too far. (namely you have to trigger identify everything)

FFS, there’s really no appropriate time TO be saying “I’m going to rape you” in a conversation even if it isn’t a fucking trigger. Jesus fucking Christ, do black people have to specifically ask you idiots not to call them Nigger because you don’t know any better otherwise?

My primate ancestors also relieved themselves whenever and wherever the need arose. Any socially-imposed restrictions on where I shit and piss, or discussion of whether it’s appropriate to shit in the presence of others, are just fascist attempts to suppress the Real Me.

If I’m reading the part abotu male feminists right, he’s saying that if you’re an asshole, you shouldn’t apologize, because that’s wussy. You need to double-down. At least he practices what he preaches.

I’m sure there are some men out there whose activism entails the legitimate issues that men do face in society, without at the same time being a reprehensible asshole when it comes to the rights of women.

Honestly? Those men are generally feminists. For example, it is a problem that men often don’t get any kind of parental leave, but I honestly have yet to meet a feminist who would disagree with that statement. (I’m sure one exists, but it’s definitely not the majority view.) The patriarchy does hurt men too, and dismantling it benefits all genders.

People who gather under MRA headings tend to only focus on the issues that affect men while denying the issues that affect women and often blame women for the problems that do affect men instead of the patriarchy.

This strongly resonates with my experience.

For instance – “fathers rights groups” tend to focus on legal rights towards children after divorce, instead of focusing on equal parenting before divorce (paving the way for more equal parenting later).

Someone’s angry. I didn’t direct it at anyone, or I would have quoted someone. ;)

He is talking about an issue of political correctness. He says that he shouldn’t have to babysit everyone in the world to make sure they aren’t offended. He wasn’t being hateful to rape victims. He is a rape victim. He was arguing that he shouldn’t have to censor what he writes because it could trigger someone.

I just realized that we’re in for some GLORIOUS assholes here. Because this is so bad that even people who were fans before, either cannot defend it, see it as a deal breaker, or are so troglodyte that they agree, or are the fans who latch onto every word he says like a cult leader.

Father’s Right’s Groups, in my experience, primarily chase after boogeymen using bogus or terrible studies to justify their claims.

However, although I’ve not seen them provide good evidence for their claims, their demands were always fair if you accept their premise. They’re not really connected to reality, but they’re not assholes, after all.

So, if PZ thinks “Men… have nothing useful to say on gender issues.”, why does PZ blog on gender issues regularly? The Amazing Asshat is such a huge moron, and as a long time lurker of Pharyngula, I’m glad to see you finally rip into him.

He is talking about an issue of political correctness. He says that he shouldn’t have to babysit everyone in the world to make sure they aren’t offended.

People who care about other people do not do what he did. When they stumble into something offensive they would offer an apology and assertion of good intentions. They do not try to hurt the person even more.

If I hit you with my car accidentally I would not back up over you again and again and again. You can’t call that an accident.

We Are Ing: HUH? How did you get that from what I said? I wasn’t talking about those particular comments at all. I was just adding on to the discussion about trauma triggers and why there’s a bit of honest, well-meaning controversy over them.

That said, you’re not going to find too much in the way of TT absolutists these days, but there was a really big kerfluffle over it..two years ago or so?

How did you get that from what I said? I wasn’t talking about those particular comments at all. I was just adding on to the discussion about trauma triggers and why there’s a bit of honest, well-meaning controversy over them.

Then shut up. If you’re not talking about those comments you’re clouding the issue. Seriously, think about what you say.

He is talking about an issue of political correctness. He says that he shouldn’t have to babysit everyone in the world to make sure they aren’t offended

“Shouldn’t” from what standpoint? Nobody’s talking about making laws preventing it. They’re just saying that if you purposely say things that you know will hurt people, that makes you an asshole, and you can expect to be called an asshole, and you can expect that a lot of people will decide that you’re not worth associating with due to said assholery.

I was just adding on to the discussion about trauma triggers and why there’s a bit of honest, well-meaning controversy over them.

Controversy where? You mean between people who have actually looked up information on it v. people who have never heard of it nor thought of it before and say “but what if it doesn’t exist? I’m just asking a question!” without bothering to look it up? Google scholar just gave me pages and pages of studies on rape victims and trauma and its link to PTSD and triggers. Not that hard to find info on this here internets thing we have these days.

Well, there is just one more level that has not yet been demonstrated. That would be if TAA had actually gone out and committed a rape, then posted the video, and got patted on the back for it in the comment thread….

Don’t give them ideas. The only thing that’s probably stopping them is that a tiny reasonable part of their brain tells them that this would force the gynofascist dictatorship government to prove that they indeed convict about 2-5% of rapists.
But given that there already has been an MRA who burned himself, there are reasonable fears.

Please, tell us zeur, what context do you think appropriate to tell somebody that they should be raped, that their rapist was a hero and that they hope the get raped again soon, to an actual rape-victim?

Oh, The Amazing Atheist. So glad I never subsribed to his youtube channel. I’ve seen a couple of his videos, including those about Elevatorgate, feminism and vegetarians. They were all completely uninformed piles of shit. His comments now, though perhaps somewhat more extreme, entirely along the same lines as his usual arse gravy.

He is talking about an issue of political correctness. He says that he shouldn’t have to babysit everyone in the world to make sure they aren’t offended. He wasn’t being hateful to rape victims. He is a rape victim. He was arguing that he shouldn’t have to censor what he writes because it could trigger someone.

Ah, yes. The old “political correctness.” The idea we shouldn’t worry about offending people. The idea that it’s perfectly acceptable to masturbate in public, or cop a squat and take a shit on a public street. The idea that picking your nose and eating your boogers is not only acceptable, but not even noteworthy. Why, there’s no reason someone should be offended when you run up to someone in a wheelchair and call them “cripple.” “What’s the matter? Can’tcha walk? Awe, did widdle snookums lose their legs? Look at me! I’m dancing!”

The idea that, because we can say something, we should. “Why, I see that your daughter suffers from autism. Gosh, it must suck raising a retard. Why didn’t you have an abortion?”

I can see how that’s a good thing. Why, that’s a very noble cause, teasing a rape victim about their rape. A very noble cause indeed.

Stand up for not only the right to say hateful, obnoxious things, but the necessity of saying them.

The screenshots in the Atheist Experience post contain a lot of him disbelieving that trauma triggers are an actual thing. Is it possible that it is a factual matter requiring skeptical thought?

Given that many people have understood this not as I intended, I obviously didn’t express my thoughts very well.

I was attempting to convey a thought regarding the recent wars over whether skepticism should have a say in social justice issues. I tried to draw attention to the fact that this guy’s misogyny at least partially takes the form of denialism, and therefore is at least as eligible to be counted as Fodder For Skepticism as, say, creationism.

That wasn’t a particularly original thought, and I expressed it poorly, made people think I was in denial of the concept of trauma triggers, and have now had to write another comment three times as long to clarify what I wanted to say. I think my fail quota for today is fulfilled and I can now resume lurking with a clear conscience.

I can’t remember how I ended up seeing some of TAA’s videos, but I watched a few a while back, and left uncertain if I should be embarrassed as an atheist or amused by the poe. So nice of him to clear that up.

There’s absolutely no context where his asinine, sociopathic bullshit is acceptable. I only hope he enjoys being shunned publicly and regularly. Though considering the flotilla of shitbaskets here defending him, I suspect there won’t be nearly enough shunning.

He says it’s okay for him to say this shit because he was raped himself. THIS CLAIM IS HORSESHIT. There are many, many rape survivors out there, myself included, who somehow manage day-to-day activity, and even being disagreed with, without threatening people with rape. Also, it’s possible to feel sympathy for a survivor while still decrying their stupid, abusive bullshit. Those of us smarter than a cabbage can hold two thoughts at once.

He says he can’t possibly be a threat, he’s a submissive. This is also bullshit. He’s threatening rape, and gleefully triggering survivors on top of defending making women uncomfortable as somehow a right. Sorry jackass, IDGAF if you want a good spanking, you don’t get to treat women like faulty appliances. There are creepy, entitled, rapey subs as easily as there are creepy entitled rapey dom/mes. Thanks, TAA, for proving this.

It’s funny, the only sex I see feminists saying you can’t do is rape. Which he seems to have a problem with?

I think PZ is just too old to understand the language The AmazingAtheist and other youtubers use. That talk about rape is just exaggeration for effect.

Really? You think that’s it? You don’t think its because he actually used one person’s rape against them? You don’t think it’s because it’s one level of bad taste to make rape jokes, and another to continue to do so, directed at a specific person, after learning that person had been raped?

It’s as simple as that.

No, kiddo. PZ’s just calling out a fucking asshole for publicly and loudly being a fucking asshole. It’s as simple as that.

Here’s what you don’t get: That doing so is un-fucking-acceptable. Especially when confronted by the fact that the person he was talking to was actually raped, and the fact that he continued used the term repeatedly “for effect” after this was revealed. Rape isn’t a joke, and he doesn’t get a pass for acting as if it is just by pretending that “everyone else is doing it”.

As an honest MRA who seeks equality with all people let me apologize and point out that we’re not all like TAA. Some of us have had actual bad experiences with “feminists” (and I only use the term feminist because the person claimed the title).

But TAA’s situation and experience and response were completely out of line. I have PTSD from waking up during surgery and let me tell you triggers are too damn real.

The MRA did me a lot of good as a father seeking the safety and well-being of his only child during a very dark, trying, and difficult divorce. They provided tons of excellent advice, help, and resources. Long story short: They helped me figure out the insane bureaucracies of family law and courts so that my only child wasn’t living in a dirty hotel room with two cocaine addicts and a guy who bragged that he liked young girls despite the claims of a self-proclaimed feminist (her quote, “What sort of feminist would I be if I let (my kid’s name) go with you, the father?”). @_@

The MRA actually do good work. There are definitely blowhards and assholes, just like in any large group of disparate individuals, and if I hadn’t had such a bad experience I’d probably consider myself a feminist, but that’s not how life worked out. So before we go tarring all MRAs with the same despicable brush that TAA completely and uttering deserves for his despicable behavior, it’d be appropriate that as atheists we’re naturally skeptical and we don’t believe anyone’s claims unless backed up with by evidence.

So you think people have unfairly miscategorized MRA’s based on a number of bad interactions with them and think that shouldn’t happen. Which in your anecdote you have admitted doing to feminists. You are off to a great start.

Yeah, that’s the thing that’s sickening. I have heard teenage gamers use the word “raped” for effect, normally suggesting “defeated very thoroughly”, and this is a casual usage of the word that exists but should NOT be encouraged. Datasolution seems to think that it exists, so we shouldn’t care about whether that usage fits with the context of Asinine Atheist’s screeds and we shouldn’t consider whether such a usage could rightfully criticized. But this is because datasolution is a mindless MRA fuckwit.

stgulik:

The MRA actually do good work. There are definitely blowhards and assholes, just like in any large group of disparate individuals, and if I hadn’t had such a bad experience I’d probably consider myself a feminist, but that’s not how life worked out. So before we go tarring all MRAs with the same despicable brush that TAA completely and uttering deserves for his despicable behavior, it’d be appropriate that as atheists we’re naturally skeptical and we don’t believe anyone’s claims unless backed up with by evidence.

Paraphrased: “MRAs are good, even though there are some bad eggs. I had some experience with some bad feminists and thus didn’t become a feminist. Don’t dismiss MRAs based on a few bad eggs!”

Are you presenting yourself as a cautionary tale on how not to make knee-jerk dismissals of political ideas based on personal experiences, or are you just this blind to your own hypocrisy?

I’m still fairly new to feminism — to somewhat lasting shame, I *was* a rather misogynistic youth. (Coincidentally also a glibertarian; y’know, the kind who thought that poltics-by-soundbite was how it should be.) I owe my enlightenment, if you will, to my sister-in-law’s sister, who took offense to a blog post I had written and said as much — basically made me look at what I had said through someone else’s eyes. Honestly, it rather sickened me to see what an unthinking asshole I’d been.

Now, I will say that I do not empathize easily or “naturally;” it’s not an excuse, mind, but it does tie into some of the other mental health issues that I do face. I’m not sure if it’s right to refer to it as a blind spot, necessarily, but a lot of my former political beliefs — and ideas about interpersonal relationships — stemmed almost entirely from my inability to look at things from another’s point of view.

So where does this all tie into this post? ‘Cause when I read the shit that TJ was spewing I see a lot of how I used to be, and it’s fucking revolting. I never want to let myself be that ugly again.

The MRA actually do good work. There are definitely blowhards and assholes, just like in any large group of disparate individuals, and if I hadn’t had such a bad experience I’d probably consider myself a feminist, but that’s not how life worked out. So before we go tarring all MRAs with the same despicable brush that TAA completely and uttering deserves for his despicable behavior,

it’d be appropriate that as atheists we’re naturally skeptical and we don’t believe anyone’s claims unless backed up with by evidence.

‘kay. Name these supposed ‘good MRAs’. I mean I’ll be honest, your story sounds like a script to begin with, but I’m not so gauche as to demand proof of it; just tell me who the MRAs who you claim helped you are, and link to them.

So before we go tarring all MRAs with the same despicable brush that TAA completely and uttering deserves for his despicable behavior

MRA is as MRA does. MRA is as MRA self-identifies. If the so-called “good” MRAs actually made an effort to stand up to and shout down the despicable ones, and one could actually see evidence of these efforts, things might be difference.

It is a wonder that anyone can still function when they seem so consumed by that much resentment. Maybe doing the internet thing is all he can still do.
Reading the transcripts posted here is just about all I can take of that, I will not be watching his YouTube postings there is a limit.
Yes I can see that if he is what the religious think of when they think of atheists, it is no wonder that they think atheists must be mad at god.

Consent is a key element in a successful society I can agree with that as long as we do not mean only to just being long lasting only. There are many reasons that could be used for giving consent not to forget fear of death being one.
I think that a modern successful society would require consent as a basic tenet. The government only governs only with the consent of the governed that has been stated some where and is being demonstrated this vary day. No less the relationships within the society should also be based on consent of the participants.
All culture is based on an agreement without that there is isolation and conflict.

I wonder how this toad would feel if the shoe was on the other foot?
but of course it is just words it does not count in the “real world”

So the rape victim that TJ said those comments too was a man who had been raped by a woman….

TJ obviously didn’t know that. Not that it matters, as rape is a traumatic experience whether you’re male or female.

That does not excuse the comments but really?

But really, what? But really, TJ’s a selfish fucking asshole with not one shred of empathy or human decency? But really, I’m just making excuses for hateful nasty things? But really, rape is OK in your book?

Scratching is an evolved response that lowers the risk of flea borne diseases. Scratching most certainly does not only make it worse.

Now of course there are some pathogens that have hijacked this response, such that scratching actually promotes their transmission (such is life), but it is empirically demonstrated that scratching is superior to non-scratching, seeing as the non-scratchers are no longer with us.

I think PZ is just too old to understand the language The AmazingAtheist and other youtubers use. That talk about rape is just exaggeration for effect.

It’s as simple as that.

Apparently then, the Amazing Atheist and his fans are just too stupid to understand the language they’re using because it is NEVER ok to talk about rape the way he did. Rape is a real crime that happens to real people, not “just an exaggeration for effect.”

Seriously, what the hell are they teaching kids in schools these days?

TheAmazingAtheist has so much good videos on every topic, most favorites on youtube I have are from him.

Yeah, that’s nice for you. Are we supposed to be impressed now? Pretty much all of TheAmazingAsshat’s videos are piles of completely uninformed yak manure. The guy is a disgrace. His videos aren’t intelligent, although he himself obviously thinks he is. they’re just TJ being loud and obnoxious. If that’s your kind of thing, okay, fine by me, but don’t claim that the ‘quality’ of his videos somehow means that we should overlook the disgusting streams of loose stoolwater he keeps spitting.

I can easily believe that there are nice, helpful, friendly MRAs out there, just like I know that there are helpful, nice Christians out there. The thing is, they’re nice and helpful and supportive in spite of being MRAs, not because of it, the same way the Christians are good in spite of their religion, not because of it.

He is talking about an issue of political correctness. He says that he shouldn’t have to babysit everyone in the world to make sure they aren’t offended. He wasn’t being hateful to rape victims. He is a rape victim. He was arguing that he shouldn’t have to censor what he writes because it could trigger someone.

Ok, zeur, on what planet in what alternate dimension are you posting from, and what reality wherein the scenario you describe above is an actual accurate representation of?.

So the rape victim that TJ said those comments too was a man who had been raped by a woman….

That does not excuse the comments but really?

So, that was more than three…
Are you fucking stupid?
Have you ever heard about things like drugs?
Have you ever noticed that men can get erections even though they don’t want to have sex?
Do you realize that this is a major obstace for men getting recognition of their rape because people claim that since they had an erection they wanted it?

If you think you have fallen amongst those alleged feminazis who would cheer on such a thing, you are wrong, because those people are mostly creatures of your imagination.

Datacupcake has finally done the Pharyngula trope of “I used to respect PZ until the feminazis cut his balls off”. How many times have we seen this since the on going shit storm against Rebecca Watson?

Anyone can be subdued or threatened into becoming a rape victim. Just think about the crap women get when reporting being raped when we’re the one society tends to treat as fragile little snowflakes. Men are expected to be big and strong – you think they’re going to put themselves through the crap they’re going to get for being rape victims, especially when their rapist is from what society deems “the weaker sex”, when it means their masculinity is going to be derided and called into question even more?

This forum is full of psuedo intellectual wannabees. You ask them a question and all they can do is imply that you are stupid, a troll, or a flea.

Whats even more funny is that myers is all gung ho to denounce TAA but is all buddy buddy with Thunderfoot who compared the muslims who wanted to build a mosque in New York to the westboro baptist church.

@ #187, you do realize that forcing someone to have sex is rape right?

I’m saying that my experience is the inverse of a lot of folks, and that I don’t dismiss feminism at all. My wife is a feminist, as are the vast majority of my friends.

Hell, I used to avoid using the term MRA because like atheist it had such bad connotations, but I realized the hypocrisy in that and embraced the term because it was MRAs that helped me in my situation and not feminists (at least not any who identified themselves as such and only one who did who actively worked against me for no rational reason except I was the father).

My experience as a father, a former divorcee, and a man who spent six years in family court has lent me experience in helping other men who go through similar situations like mine and not a lot of experience where I can help out in situations that are typical feminist rally points (although I do and have helped when I can). So I identify as an MRA because that is where I can do the most good.

And for those who want more details here’s the basic situation: Ex and I were married for six years, we had a two year old daughter. Ex became severely depressed, I recognized this as I’d dealt with the same thing. She quit her insanely good job and completely cocooned. Everyone in her life tried for 18 months to get her to a therapist or at least on something so she’d get better. She refused. She made new friends and dropped all her old ones, she started hanging out with some bad folks. She wanted a divorce because she decided we’d never loved each other ever. We separated, and I suspected she was on drugs because her moods changed wildly and she started lying to me about crazy random stuff.

The court gave her custody, I had no options at that point. I was completely locked out of my daughter’s life and the court viewed me as a pariah because my ex claimed I’d never loved my daughter and I was never around (I was working 80+ hours a week so we wouldn’t lose our house after she quit her job and refused to even think about getting another one) until several years later when she dumped evidence of her coke habit all over her parent’s kitchen table by accident.

We tried CPS, that is where my run-in with the “feminist” happened. It felt like that was it, there was nothing left to do. I lamented about this on a Daddy blog that has since gone the way of geocities (wasn’t hosted there). I got tons of advice from dads who’d been there. They told me what I should do and not do and what the court found compelling and useful.

Ultimately, I lawyered up, got depositions from all of the witnesses to the infamous kitchen table event, and to two other later events (step mom was trying to find clean socks for my daughter over at my ex’s and instead found a bag of coke in my daughter’s dresser where “mommie” had hidden it from her boyfriend) and we asked for drug testing and mediation. We got both.

Discovered that she just had started meth! And the court backed us (myself and her family) the entire way. And she got help, which is a good thing. I don’t know her anymore. She’s a completely different person than the smart, witty and strong woman I married almost fifteen years ago, but she’s better now and more importantly my child is in a safe home where she can actually go to school, have clean clothes, parents who help her, and is loved. And yes, now that her mom is a LOT better she sees her all the time.

What a coincidence! I recently discovered TJ’s video on Elevator Gate (I never listened to him much before, so I had no idea that he was an MRA before seeing his rant) and had several arguments with his supporters. It’s like arguing with a chat bot. The responses are predictable and they show no sign of comprehending anything you have to say.

IcumwhenIkillmen. That’s just harmless sarcasm, is it? “It’s a way of de-fanging anti-feminist jackassery.” I see.

I’m a woman, a rape victim, a sex worker rights advocate, and an atheist. I have a major problem with this and have had similar tactics employed against me personally and used to distract from–of all things–my challenging the base ideology of radical feminists.

And now as PZ comes in for the kill, the white knight with a trigger warning on his rational blog here, and I will note that I’ve seen Daniel Fincke calling for TAA to be shunned for responding to this common tactic of radical feminists.

It’s their tactics that should be called out, not the people who end up losing their composure as intended. But you’ll come in and qualify your position on this *harmless practice of gender baiting as an afterthought. Because, y’know, joking about dead men is funny, but being provoked in response is just…like…so *not okay.

In the end, it allows you all to sit here like you’re morally superior than most, and that’s what’s important, right?

This forum is full of psuedo intellectual wannabees. You ask them a question and all they can do is imply that you are stupid, a troll, or a flea.

You asked as seriously stupid question, one where the answer was clear for everybody with two brain cells to huddle together for warmth.
You actually got answers, in graphic detail. And you got the amount of insults you deserved for dismissing the experiences of male rape-victims as “impossible”.

I’m a woman, a rape victim, a sex worker rights advocate, and an atheist. I have a major problem with this and have had similar tactics employed against me personally and used to distract from–of all things–my challenging the base ideology of radical feminists.

Seriously, what the fuck is wrong with you? Nobody said it was common. Just that it is a thing that happens in reality. And that reflexively dismissing the claims of men who have been raped is an asshole move.

This is exactly why people have no obligation to make ‘arguements’ to someone like you, you lazy fucking incompetent. You seem capable of crying ‘fallacy’ well enough, why is it that don’t know how, say, Wikipedia works?

This forum is full of psuedo intellectual wannabees. You ask them a question and all they can do is imply that you are stupid, a troll, or a flea.

Y’know, it’d be fine, except you keep trying to fucking defend the indefensible. It’s not just your questions that mark you as an idiot. It’s your inability to listen to people when they respond to you.

@ #187, you do realize that forcing someone to have sex is rape right?

Yes. I also understand that not all rape is sex, and that not all sex is rape. You get that, right?

You realize a woman can sodomize a man, and that would be rape, right?

Rape isn’t strictly about sex. Rapists aren’t just men who are frustrated by not having sex. Rapists feel powerful when they can dominate someone, violently traumatize them, humiliate them. The difference between sex and rape are vast.

So when you try to defend TAA by saying, “The person he was cruelly taunting about their rape was a man, so it’s not that bad, amirite?” you’re just showing you’re either very insensitive, or very naive. I thought at first you might simply be naive, but I’m starting to realize you just don’t get the trauma rape can cause. You seem to think it’s just an unexpected sexual encounter.

@185 carlie – I beg to differ. MRAs tend to focus on areas of advocacy that men need help with. The BIG one is family law/courts that are insanely slanted towards women and against men vs. an equality for both parties.

And if you could, for a moment, just replace MRA in your statement with feminist, or atheist, or any single group and see if you think any of those make your statement bigoted that’d be great. Because from where I’m standing it’s a bigoted statement.

I’m very sorry to hear that your family had to go through this, but I do want to point out something here:

The court gave her custody, I had no options at that point. I was completely locked out of my daughter’s life and the court viewed me as a pariah because my ex claimed I’d never loved my daughter and I was never around (I was working 80+ hours a week so we wouldn’t lose our house after she quit her job and refused to even think about getting another one) until several years later when she dumped evidence of her coke habit all over her parent’s kitchen table by accident.

You do realize that this kind of attitude toward fathers, that views men as “secondary or lesser parents” is not due to feminism, but due to the patriarchal system that has delineated what is considered “masculine” and “feminine” behavior, so that it is *expected and taken for granted* that fathers are lesser parents because of course “real men” don’t care to or are incapable of exhibiting primary caregiver traits and behaviors toward their children. It is the patriarchal system that expects men to carry the employment load because “real men” provide for their families, leading to men being given little to no paternity leave, little flexibility to take on a more equal parenting role, and little to no understanding from employers that their male employees might wish to cut back on work or have more flexibility to be involved parents. This is the same patriarchal system that feminism fights to dismantle because proscribed rigid gender roles hurt both men and women – when we say as feminists that “patriarchy hurts men, too” we mean every word of it.

Dude, you are really scrapping the bottom of barrel now. I can’t believe you are finally running out of people to ridicule. Somewhere out there is another accommodationist breathing a sigh of relief that PZ Myers is wasting his times with nuts.

The BIG one is family law/courts that are insanely slanted towards women and against men vs. an equality for both parties.

Not exactly true. Family law and the courts are slanted in favor of the primary caregiver. That is, if one parent was the one who spent the most time, attention, and effort on the child(ren) and/or were the source of most of the time and attention that the child(ren) received from their parents, then that parent, male or female, is more likely to receive custody.
The majority of primary caregivers are the mother. The law and the courts recognize this fact.
Want more men to get custody of their children? Encourage them to be better fathers while they are still with their child(ren)’s mother.

Because, y’know, joking about dead men is funny
but being provoked in response is just…like…so *not okay.

Rewind for you here: He was ‘provoked’ into making more threats of violence here, just like he was when he said “The Next feminist who tells me to ‘mind my privilege’ is getting punched in the tits”. You’re picking the wrong horse to sally behind here.

IcumwhenIkillmen. That’s just harmless sarcasm, is it? “It’s a way of de-fanging anti-feminist jackassery.” I see.

Gonna stand behind it, too.

I have a major problem with this and have had similar tactics employed against me personally and used to distract from–of all things–my challenging the base ideology of radical feminists.

So? Withholding comment on your views, mockery can be used for evil. What’s your point? So can anything else. It sucks when it’s used against a good cause, but that doesn’t mean the rest of us have to stop.

Protip: You’re not going to be very successful telling Gnu Atheists that they have to be simperingly polite to everything they disagree with, unless things have *really* changed. But fuck if threats of violence against a person are okay, ever.

crecy: Fuck right the hell off. You came here not even believing that women raping men was even fucking possible. You were given two examples, and now suddenly are reframing it to sarcastic posturing about how it isn’t common. Which has nothing to do with your initial criticism at all! You were wrong. Fucking deal with it.

The female MRA:

Because, y’know, joking about dead men is funny, but being provoked in response is just…like…so not okay

Yeah, because women killing men for sexual pleasure is such a common thing. Not like men committing rape, which is such a rarity! And having a morbid joke in your screen completely warrants repeated reference to rape in response. I mean, obviously.

In response to what you said about him wanting to go around imposing his will on other people: he is openly submissive.

1) His own sexual orientation is really irrelevant to his behavior. He could be the femmest cross dressing gay dude alive and there still wouldn’t be any context for excusing threats to rape women.
2) As I’m sure any dominant woman could tell you, the vast majority of “submissive” men are really just narcissistic twits who want wind-up toy dominatrices with no thoughts, feelings, or desires of their own to perform whatever acts the “submissive” desires. Based on his attitude I’m guessing “TJ” is another one of those. All he means by being “submissive” is that he wants to be the center of attention — he doesn’t actually want to have to give anything back during a sex act. Big surprise there.

The majority of primary caregivers are the mother. The law and the courts recognize this fact.

Want more men to get custody of their children? Encourage them to be better fathers while they are still with their child(ren)’s mother.

To be fair, that’s sometimes easier said than done, given the expectations patriarchy has set up for what’s acceptable male behavior. Not all employers are as willing to work with fathers as they are with mothers to provide flex time so that both parents can take on a more equal share of parenting duties, and “stay at home dads” or fathers who take on primary caregiver duties can get their own heaping dose of societal “askance viewing” if not outright derision or suspicion.

Again, though, that traces back to patriarchy and the system it perpetuates, not feminism.

I find it astonishing that you’re going to defend TAA like that: I am no fan of tenets of radical feminism, but at least there is an internal debate going on there about what’s acceptable, and what’s not. TAA basically would throw everything feminist under the bus, because he irrationally hates anyone associated with it. He’s also, as Kazim put it very helpfully, a horrible person who is unaware of how horrible he is.

As for the claim of white knighting, which is really just a derailing and silencing technique: it’s just plain human decency to expect human beings to treat other people with respect – which TAA has totally failed at on numerous occasions before now, and is totally deserving of his comeuppance now.

This whole affair was prompted by a poster on reddit going by the nickname “ICumWhenIKillMen”, which I find reprehensible too,

From this point on, you will be expected to read for yourself. Failure to do so may result in suggestions involving porcupines. Yes, I noticed he found it “reprehensible” while failing to take it into consideration.

You’ve failed to read the rest of my quote feralboy12.
It was to a commenter here who defended the tactic:

“It’s a way of de-fanging anti-feminist jackassery.”

I disagree. It’s intended to bait anyone challenging the ideology in any way.

First off, Hi Rutee. I haven’t seen you around this corner of teh intertoobs for a while. It is good to have you around again.

As for the laughably entitled ‘amazing’ atheist, he is sadly proof positive that simply being an atheist, in and of itself, is no guarantee that you will not also be an utterly obnoxious, misogynist jerk and an all round poor excuse for a human being, but post Elevatorgate this is hardly news.

I simply cannot comprehend the mindset of anyone who thinks it acceptable to try to use a rape survivor’s trauma against them – the rape threats, the intentional attempst at triggering – it beggars belief. This cretin really is every bit as bad as the worst theist trolls.

And then there are the idiots who feel it necessary to try to excuse his unnacceptable behaviour on the basis that the nym of the target of his bile somehow justified his bigoted rant. As has been pointed out repeatedly upthread, the nym “ICumWhenIKillMen” is similar to our own baby-eating trope – that is, a deliberate exaggeration of the crass demonisation that both atheists and feminists receive in order to highlight the ridiculousness of their repsective opponents.

Atheists are accused by many theists as being incapable of making moral decisions by virtue of their lack of a belief in a magic man in the sky, and so there is supposedly no reason why atheists wouldn’t kill and engage in all manner of depravity because hey, why not? So the baby-eating in-joke developed as a means of taking this all too common and abnoxious little theist screed to the nth degree and thus making it their own. Feminists are similarly wilfully mischaracterised by their opponents as castration-obsessed man-hating hellions, and so nyms like “ICumWhenIKillMen” were created as a means of exaggerating and thus mocking the ridiculous strawmanning of the feminist position – neither sentiment is supposed to be taken literally, and only the most irony deficient (or deliberately dishonest) would seek to do so.

daniellavine @ #231: Your second point was exactly what came to my mind during his “shocking twist”. There’s no shortage of selfish crapcake submissives who just want a female cipher to act upon them for a while while they sit back and enjoy. Shockingly, sexual roleplay actually has less than flawless correlation on one’s real beliefs and attitudes

And if you could, for a moment, just replace MRA in your statement with feminist, or atheist, or any single group and see if you think any of those make your statement bigoted that’d be great. Because from where I’m standing it’s a bigoted statement.

Wow. I play the world’s smallest violin for the bigotry one must face as an advocate for the western world’s most consistently and historically privileged gender. Seriously, if you want to prove that there are good MRAs, then help us clean up the mess of the bad MRAs in this thread, or just stick to the sappy anecdotes. If you whine about the MRAs not being properly esteemed one more time, in the midst of other MRAs dong whatever they can to deny the significance of rape, then you’ve pretty much made it clear how “good” of an MRA you actually are.

PZ doesn’t finds rape jokes funny. Neither do I nor, I would wager, do the vast majority of the regulars here. I find the fact that you think it is good for a laugh disturbing, to say the least.

I would be very curious to hear your reasoning in declaring that opposition to the use of rape threats and attempts to employ a rape survivor’s trauma against them is ‘delusional’.

… this changes absolutely nothing.

The fact that rape threats mean so little to you speaks volumes about your attitude toward women and your seeming obliviousness to the toxic ubiquity of rape culture. Maybe you need to re-evaluate your priorities?

TheAmazingAtheist has so much good videos on every topic, most favorites on youtube I have are from him.

Whether or not you enjoy AA’s style does nothing to mitigate his deliberate and repeated attempts to trigger the trauma of a rape survivor and his use of rape threats. Are you sure you want to champion such a man?

Also, he is the most viewed atheist on youtube by far, so PZ’s animosity towards him is just wishful thinking.

All manner of toxic and offensive things are highly popular – just look at the viewer ratings for Fox News – but this doesn’t make them right or excuse their bigoted behaviour.

@ 143;

I think PZ is just too old to understand the language The AmazingAtheist and other youtubers use. That talk about rape is just exaggeration for effect.

By the same token, why not declare the racist and eliminationist rhetoric of ethno-nationalist and fascist groups simply ‘exaggeration for effect’? What about the statements of homophobes who say that homosexuality is an abominable crime that should be punishable by death? Are their words to be indulgently waved aside as merely theatrical colloquial confections?

The excuse you seek to deploy here could be used by any apologist for any form of hate speech – “no, it’s not bigotry, you just aren’t hip enough to grok to young-people-speak, old dude…”

If such a defence cannot be fielded in relation to those bigotries, why do you feel it can be deployed in relation to misogyny?

It’s their tactics that should be called out, not the people who end up losing their composure as intended.

Oh, the womenz made him do it!
Poor little TJ who was tricked and bullied into making some of the most reprehensible comments I’ve read in a while (and that means something).

Also, no, that username was not funny. Only, as others have pointed out, it’s not a common thing to happen. Like the thing with the babies we eat by the dozen, like the half-decayed porcupine you’ll be shortly offered which you can insert into your ass at your own delight and discretion (or not).

@222 – Yes, I do recognize that, but I also recognize that there is more than just patriarchy at play and that nothing in this world is because of just one thing. I’d probably be a Creationist if I just assumed some imaginary Sky-Dude is responsible for everything that is horrible and wrong with this world.

My experience with more feminists than is a good thing is that they don’t mind or feel like they need to do a lot of work to fix the imbalance in the family courts, that there are more, to them, pressing issues. And that’s fine for them, but for me, someone who’s been there, it is/was very pressing. It is something that does need to be fixed and there are people who need help. My help came from MRAs, I see damn few feminists speaking out against the inequalities in the courts, and so I claim allegiance to the people who helped me. Ultimately, I and many other MRAs seek equality for everyone regardless of gender.

Most EMTs don’t work on ski-slopes, but when someone breaks their leg or is covered up in an avalanche it’s a pressing issue to that person and they’re glad the EMTs are there working on that ski slope saving them.

stgulik, the vast majority of the interactions most of us have had with MRAs are extremely negative. Do you deny that misogyny is a big problem in the movement? They can do all sorts of good work with specific individuals with regards to court cases and still be a pretty rotten movement overall because of the overwhelmingly sexist way they choose to present themselves in public. In fact, even some of the good deeds themselves aren’t great when motivated by hatred towards women.

Hey crecy, been following your comments in this thread for a while now. Just wanted to tell you, you’re a poster child for Kazim’s “Horrible people don’t realize they’re horrible” idea. You might want to go over to the Atheist Experience, read it, and reflect on that.

Or you might want to go on being an emotional libertarian demonstration of Dunning-Kruger effect for the remaining length of this thread – being a feminism special, I figure we’ve got at least 550 comments before the page counter resets.

Here’s what you seem to not get: It might be bait, but only the shittiest of human beings, with or without bait, would make repeated references to rape in order to get back at someone for their screen-name. This is straight-up victim blaming, online edition. I don’t care how much he was provoked. Decent human beings don’t threaten people with rape repeatedly due to being “provoked” or “baited”. That I even need to say this is just fucking sad.

And here we are, searching for a social movement that’s trying to dismantle traditional repressive gender roles! What is it called again…?

Feminism!

No, that can’t be it, feminism is supposed to be about hating on teh menz and “putting them in their place – below women.” It’s that social movement that calls for equal treatment regardless of sex or gender. Oh, it’s just on the tip of my tongue…

Declaring partial thread bankruptcy to ask a question: Considering that relatively few feminists are ant-male, and the majority care about the various issues faced by men in a patriarchal society, perhaps it is best we call ourselves Antipatriarchists? The term could be seen to cover feminism, sex-positivism, legitimate discussion of men’s issues, and many elements of religion. Thoughts?

Wow, thepint at 251’s quote from Mr. Good MRA. Seriously, what was that about not dismissing feminism and about not painting with a broad brush or whatever? And here I was, thinking that maybe Mr. Good MRA wasn’t a hypocrite making knee-jerk rejections of feminism and abiding by stereotypes while chastising us for rejecting MRAs. Glad that he could prove me wrong! We’ll keep a look-out for an actual Good MRA. Sure to be out there somewhere. Perhaps wherever they are hiding all the Sophisticated Theology.

stgulik, I can certainly believe that you got help, and it was from MRAs, and that where you were at the time they were the only ones focusing on what you needed. But that was a specific case for you. Yes, the court system does need fixing. But the group that you’re aligning yourself with does a lot of harm, too. And we’re the people they’re doing harm to, which is why we’re not that swayed by the help you received. It’s like someone saying how much the local gang helped them keep from going bankrupt with their business to someone who is getting regular shakedowns by the same group.

BTW, if you pretend to believe in equal rights why don’t you just call yourselves egalitarians instead of feminists??

Because the term is highjacked by idiot misogynists and some other groups we don’t want to be associated with. And the fact that “feminist” is an established label for the simple idea that women are human and should be treated as such.

Judging by their showing here, what if these idiots and others like them are behind all those stories of theists trouncing atheist arguments? I mean, inevitably at least some of those are just dishonesty but I could really see that from these folks.

@240 – First off I wasn’t talking to you, but secondly, I haven’t been reading a lot of this thread since my lunch break ended. I responded to a few people who had some direct questions or statements about what I said. I read most of the thread before I posted, but my first post took awhile and it blew up while I was writing my post.

So what should I do about these supposed MRA’s douchebags? Call them names, Flame them out of Existence? They’re asshole trolls for the most part that I’ve read about. You’ve got a complete handle on them (their view of feminism = women are bitches, or something to that effect I believe you posted). I don’t speak for all MRA’s just like you don’t speak for all feminists.

What are you exactly asking me to do? Put Humpty’s Shell back together? It’s not like I can recall these self-proclaimed MRA’s back to the secret MRA HQ anymore than you could have prevented that jerk of a CPS counselor from telling me she was being a feminist by putting my daughter in an unsafe environment.

Recognize trolls for what they are, and get on with your life. I’m trying to do good, and so are other MRAs, and this issue is a side one to the fact that most of these trolls in this thread appear to be TAA supporters specifically and the term MRA was used in a derogatory manner by someone here in this thread in reference to TAA and his ilk before anyone associated with or supporting TAA made such a claim.

I was just pointing out a fallacy in the argument against TAA and trying to keep it on track. For example, TAA is a horrible person because he actively tried to trigger a person’s PTSD of a rape they’d experienced. He claims he doesn’t believe in triggers despite there being numerous scientific and medical evidence for their existence.

IN FACT, it’s well known that the infamous Laryngeal Nerve that Richard Dawkins likes to point out is party to triggers by it’s sending of Alpha tones (if I get my tones backwards my apologies) to the body as it is part of the Vagnus nerve and the primary culprit in PTSD responses which are commonly the beginning of a vasovagal response: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vasovagal_syncope

So TAA, is at the very least a unskeptical asshat who ignores evidence in a dogmatic manner and uses that fake ignorance to do real harm to a person because they don’t agree with him.

This is going to be such a fun read as I get more and more drunk tonight(yay home brew!) and see the spanking of stupid sexist people. Woohoo!

Seriously though, TJ’s a terrible person who needs to get a grip and consider getting some help. Nothing anyone can say to you on the Internet should ever generate this level of anger and viciousness, and he jumps straight to it at the drop of a hat. And his defenders are somehow worse, because they don’t even have whatever minor insignificant provocation that TJ is claiming as justification… they’re hitting the same level of insane rage on his behalf, and that’s just as sick and twice as bizarre.

I’m not defending anyone in this flame war. It’s disheartening Rebecca Watson couldn’t bring up sexism in the atheist community without the ensuing spectacle too.

However I question that

“TAA basically would throw everything feminist under the bus, because he irrationally hates anyone associated with it,”

because he crossed the line of vitriolic comedy.

I’m glad someone here isn’t a fan of radical feminism as it’s expressed today, thanks for stating your position. I’m not sure TAA has an irrational hatred for anything associated with feminism, or anyone associated with it. I’m not convinced of this because he lost his sh-t with some rad fems. Clearly he regrets getting into it over on reddit, he’s said as much.

Still, there are people defending gender baiting practices here. That’s lovely but hypocritical.

Judging by their showing here, what if these idiots and others like them are behind all those stories of theists trouncing atheist arguments?

That makes a depressing amount of sense.

As for stgulik: What I what you to do is what you did in the second half of your latest. To show that you are a good reasonable person who is quite distinct from the rest of the MRAs, not just tell us. And I think you made quite a good contribution here. I take what I’ve said back. (Though I still think you might have a bit of cognitive dissonance regarding broad brushes, MRAs and feminists).

I am waiting to see how many sock puppets we have going on here now. Should be interesting.

A number of years ago I was subscribed to TAA in my early days of watching atheist videos. Some of his vids were not bad. But I dropped the subscription within a couple of months because he was either a) boring–talking mostly about himself and how miserable he was; or b) becoming more and more strident about less and less interesting topics. Now it seems he has gone completely batshit, in a completely ugly way. Too bad.

Oh, and dmu111, the nice thing about a blog is that you get to talk about what you want to talk about, not what any random idiot might want you to talk about.

You know, when we talk about women being raped, there are always angry denialists who insist that we have to stop talking about when women and girls are raped and assaulted because men are raped too. They coopt a conversation they don’t want to take place and tell others what they should be able to say in their own communities.

Here when we are actually talking about men being victims of rape, you get a totally different kind of denial. Namely that men can’t be raped by women, and that rape of men especially can’t be raped by being forced to penetrate another. It fills me with tears of rage.

I know a lot of rape survivors. Not all of them are women. And yes, one of the male rape victims I’m talking about was raped by being forced to penetrate another, and that’s not the most horrifying part of his trauma. (As others have pointed out, you don’t always get erections when you want them. Adolescents in particular don’t have a great deal ability to control erections, so don’t fucking tell us that you wanted sex because you had a goddamn boner.)

So look, you denialist fuckers, if you really want to know one story of how it can happen, I will tell you. And you can learn something and shut the fuck up. [Serious fucking trigger warning]

He was forced through force and threat of violence by an older sibling and that sibling’s friend to penetrate his younger sister against either of their wishes. These two horrible people raped this girl, and decided that they would try to make their gay brother (he wan’t out yet, but he was femme from very young age) more of “a man.” They would force him to penetrate his sister. Both he and his sister in this instance are rape victims. He was subjected to corrective rape; nope it doesn’t just happen to women.

These rapists had also planned to corner and rape my mother in the same fashion. Had this male victim been around, he would undoubtedly have been raped again as well. My mother was warned by this victim, but the rapists were never caught, never reported, never prosecuted.

I grew up with the kind of parents who taught me that what happened to both the younger siblings in this case was rape. Period. I don’t know about you, but I am horrified that someone would claim what this boy experienced as rape is impossible.

Still, there are people defending gender baiting practices here. That’s lovely but hypocritical.

Are you going to make an actual argument besides “It’s mean and mockery” at some point, or am I just going to be left with the impression that you’re a few clues short of “Jinkies”? You’ve done osmething rather telling, which is fail to engage with the person you claim to have a problem with. In fact, you haven’t engaged with anyone saying this, and yet insist we take you seriously. Those are mutually exclusive.

Well, you should stop expecting a warm welcome when you come in bragging about being an MRA and how great they are and what great work they do. You should understand that you’re working from behind the pole if you want the MRA movement to be respectable and respected. You should understand that the douchebags are much more vocal and have a much broader web presence than you do and that people are going to judge the group by the most vocal contingent (hence the accomodationist hateon for Dawkins). I’ve never talked to any MRAs who helped a guy through a custody battle but I’ve heard from a shit-ton of internet misogynists calling themselves MRAs, so there you go. When you call yourself an “MRA” what am I supposed to think?

You could either work to change that by working to expand the web presence of “legitimate” MRAs if there is such a thing. Or you could stop calling yourself an MRA. That one might be easiest, it’s not like there aren’t other words in the English language that would serve just as well.

Judging by their showing here, what if these idiots and others like them are behind all those stories of theists trouncing atheist arguments? I mean, inevitably at least some of those are just dishonesty but I could really see that from these folks.

Probably not. Undoubtedly some of these are some very smart, savvy individuals, and some are crecy. The same goes for feminist atheists. And libertarian ones, etc.

The problem with the community that likes to self describe with terms like ‘rationalist’ and ‘skeptic’ is that it’s only full of humans who make the same cognitive mistakes as other humans, but is invested in believing itself less prone to these mistakes. (It’s why we see people using “and I thought you were supposed to be rational” as an argument, even though it’s purely emotional and contentless.) Of course, some are aware of this and do their best to check such errors as much as possible. Others are skilled in math, chess, English, or school in general and think that such academic ease means they’re generally intelligent about other subjects. And some think intelligence is a thing you are, not something you do. These are the types that fall for Feynman’s trap of fooling yourself, where “you are the easiest person to fool.” And some just like being part of a club that will accept them.

But as much as it would fulfill a convenient narrative to leave all of the community’s fuckups on the shoulders of those we disagree with (especially those we think disagree with us because they’re irrational or unskeptical about the issue in question), it’s not the case. There are some brilliant sexists, and some downright idiotic egalitarians. They’re not all the same.

And extrapolating to the group on the basis of the perceptions of a few is what we’re fighting against.

Still, there are people defending gender baiting practices here. That’s lovely but hypocritical.

And now as PZ comes in for the kill, the white knight with a trigger warning on his rational blog here, and I will note that I’ve seen Daniel Fincke calling for TAA to be shunned for responding to this common tactic of radical feminists.

So is your problem with gender baiting or white knighting or calling out assholes or calls to shun assholes?

Seems to me you’re taking issue with the gender baiting — consistent with PZ and a lot of other people in this thread who aren’t a big fan of that SN. Some people are defending it, but you didn’t start by arguing with them, you started by implying PZ shouldn’t comment on this guy’s misogynistic flameout because…well, as far as I can tell, because PZ’s a dude.

Offcourse it would be rape, when non consensual sex occurs we also call it “rape”

So what is your exact position in regard to rape? First, you claim that a distinction between rape and sex is silly. Then you say there’s such a thing as non-consensual sex, but that’s not rape, it’s “rape”.

Obviously, you have a problem with the fact that rape happens, let alone that it happens a lot.

Does that penetrate that bimbo brain of yours?

I think it’s fairly clear who the empty-headed numpty here is, and it’s not Janine.

@275 – Thank you, and hardly, I’m well aware of the good that feminism and feminists do and I heartily support it. I’m actually working on some anti-rape material for a feminist friend of mine.Just because I am an MRA and work towards the equality of men in the family courts doesn’t mean I am automatically against feminism or feminists.

There are some MRAs and some feminists that make my blood boil. MRAs that claim men should never be married because all women are gold diggers drive me nuts, just as the feminists that claim that discrimination against men cannot happen.

For a few years I called myself an egalitarian, which is ultimately what feminists and MRAs should be in the best of all possible world, but I decided that few Americans knew what that meant D: or could connect it to anything. So I reverted to MRA because that is really what I am, an advocate for the rights of men in family law courts.

It might be your own cognitive dissonance that is getting in the way perhaps. :)

Why would I try to be successful in telling people who have been using the “atheists eat babies” line for almost a decade that they have to be simperingly polite when they are already simperingly annoying? :) The next person to use the threat of putting a porcupine up my ass is gonna get hauled off to court by the trigger police.

If you expect me to believe he used a real threat of violence here, you expect quite a lot.

Rape can’t happen to guys. Also, it’s not traumatic, because it’s rare. Also, rape and sex are the same thing. Non-consensual sex (aka “RAPE”) is nothing more than an unexpected sexual encounter. Also, it’s not being an asshole when you tease someone for being raped.

In any case, TAA was taken out of context, was really fighting against “political correctness,” and we’re all idiots for proving him wrong on many issues.

If you expect me to believe he used a real threat of violence here, you expect quite a lot.

“I will make you a rape victim” is a real threat of violence. It’s there and black and white. What you mean to say is “A threat he will act upon”. Which is actually irrelevant to the matter, because threats make people feel unsafe; Only one person has to mean them. I don’t care if you don’t mean it, don’t make it.

Again, you also lack an argument, though at least this time you’ve invoked Tu Quoque. You’re getting better here.

Idealogy and logic aside, however?

to be simperingly polite when they are already simperingly annoying? :)

lrn 2 word, seriously. simperingly annoying is a nonsequitor; the adverb makes no sense modifying that adjective. You could say “Annoyingly simpering” in a different context, or if you were going to imply we were all sucking up to PZ, but it wouldn’t be as strong without the similar structure. This is just bad writing, though I understand what you’re trying to do here.

I think I’d stick to either sarcasm (I can tell politeness from you is a lost cause) or a different callback (But hey, I’m just a member of the majority, what do I know about them?). At least then your blitheringly stupid argument would not be written in such a terrible way.

It might be your own cognitive dissonance that is getting in the way perhaps. :)

No, it’s hte fact that if we assume everything you said is true, you are literally the first non-asshole MRA. You’re the only one with cogdis here, for not recognizing it. You still haven’t linked to the dudes who you claim helped you, btw.

“Oh, and I’m the real genius here who responds with actual ‘arguements’, but now that I’ve told you that I’ll can just dispense with the ‘arguements’ and go for the shitcock.”

Like every other 14-to-22-year-old boy who shows up here to complain about the irrational bitches does.

That’s why I don’t fuck around with this ‘skepticallier-than-thou’ bullshit. If I’m gonna call you a piece of shit and suggest you slap your parents for failing to abort you, I’m not gonna lie about holding myself to standards of gentlepersonly discussion first.

I was nothing but polite when i came here , but because i make statements that the majority disagree with look at the vitriolic attacks. Im just returning kind with kind

This is not polite:

Lets get the pitchforks everyone and burn the atheist Heretic!
…
And besides, what does the discussion on redit have to do with atheism anyway?

Neither is making excuses for someone trying to trigger sexual-assault-related PTSD in another human being. You can pretend you were “just trolling” but all of us (except maybe you, you seem hilariously lacking in self-awareness) have been convinced by your “contributions” that you’re immature, unable to admit when you’re wrong, and unable to see things from the points of view of other people.

Hm, what sort of strange conceptions does a person have to have about human anatomy (and obviously sexual dimorphism) to think that only men have assholes?

Truly remarkable.

Asshole is the most useful of all insults. (Also, how funny is it that xe is accusing the Pharyngula Horde of all people of using “dick” as a gendered insult? I almost wish we had a tally of the number of times we’ve called that shit out.)

stgulik, what would you define as the mainstream of the MRA movement? Because I sure as shit hope it’s not people like TJ, or sites like the Spearhead or the False Rape Society, for that matter. Most of the self-identified MRAs I’ve dealt with have been misogynistic assholes, so I can’t help but be wary of someone who labels themselves as such.

@282 – I don’t see anywhere that I said I was expecting a warm welcome, and I wasn’t. I was pointing out a fallacy in someone’s argument.

I’ll say this, if your entire conception of MRAs is that they’re anti-feminist vocal douchebags than I’d wager you don’t know, understand, or have even done your skeptical duty in finding out what the MRA is all about.

One of the largest parts of MRAs is fighting for equality for both men and women in family law courts. However, there are other significant areas of advocacy. For example, MRA groups have been fighting for years for updates to the definitions of rape to make it possible for both men and women to be victims of rape something that even Federal level statues excluded as a possibility until recently. I know that there is a group of MRAs that are actively working to get Alan Turing’s name cleared of his “conviction” of homosexuality via the UK government. There are also advocates that are working to raise awareness about the massive overload of negative male stereotypes on television and in advertising. And there are tons more.

Literally, all of those things could be things that feminists work on, and in some of those cases there are feminists working on those issues, often times they’re working on the same issue, in the inverse (not in a bad way). Removing negative female stereotypes in tv and ads is a good thing. But feminists are not always working on the exact issues that MRAs are and so the job falls to us to work on the issues that matter to us most.

I see this as a good thing, many hands make light work. We can’t all work on every issue, but we can all work on some issues, let us work on where we will have the most impact.

Oh, and TAA and his ilk, still non-skeptical asshats that give atheists a bad name.

“tedious and ineffectual person,” 1935 (the lyric in “Big Rock Candy Mountain” apparently is “Where they hung the Turk [not jerk] that invented work”), Amer.Eng. carnival slang, of uncertain origin. Perhaps from jerkwater town (1878), where a steam locomotive crew had to take on boiler water from a trough or a creek because there was no water tank [Barnhart, OED]. This led 1890s to an adjectival use of jerk as “inferior, insignificant.” Alternatively, or influenced by, verbal phrase jerk off “masturbate” [Rawson].

He cannot lose or bow out. He must always dig his holes deeper and deeper. If he would have just said some feminists follow an ideology while the majority do not, everything would be fine. He has to make all atheists look bad. He annoys me often and I dislike his videos. He is proud of being fat, unhealthy, and without any discipline. Just another fat kid mad at the world.

Man… I need to reserve judgement on this until I’ve read the links, but I have to say that I’ve found at least some of The Amazing Atheist’s gloriously hyperbolic rants to be quite wonderful. Especially recently. His blast against Santorum, for example, was a bracing wonder.

And if anyone found my first post offensive even though it was not directed at anyone in particular, it just confirms my suspiscion that the majority of people here are just looking for any excuse to be offended.

I’ll say this, if your entire conception of MRAs is that they’re anti-feminist vocal douchebags than I’d wager you don’t know, understand, or have even done your skeptical duty in finding out what the MRA is all about.

I have read altogether too much of MRA ‘thought’. I have surpassed the bounds of due diligence. I have seen Fidelbogen’s screeds. I’ve listened to GirlWritesWhat blither on about untruths. I’ve read all too much of A Voice for Men’s ahistorical, stupid, patriarchal shit. And holy shit, I have seen FTSDV or whatever in all his racist, conservative, homophobic glory. I’ve seen far too much of this shit. You made a positive claim. I want evidence of it. Who the fuck do you consider ‘reasonable’ that explicitly identifies as an MRA?

One of the largest parts of MRAs is fighting for equality for both men and women in family law courts

If they’re working in the USA on the matter, this is fucking lie. As has been explained twice, primary caregivers get the bias in the US, and that is almost always women because we live in a misogynist society. Men win what might be a disproportionate level of custody cases in the US, given the facts on the ground about who’s doing most of the childcare and child raising.

Further, this isn’t the MRA as I’ve ever seen it. The MRA advocates violence and suicides, a la Thomas Ball or Anders Breivik (Only ever excused and forgiven). You’re thinking of Father’s Right’s groups. And I’ve only ever seen Father’s Right’s groups distance themselves from the MRM, when they acknowledge it at all.

There are also advocates that are working to raise awareness about the massive overload of negative male stereotypes on television and in advertising. And there are tons more.

I’ve seen people bitch in youtube comments about how Sitcom dads are proof of feminazi control over hollywood while they conveniently forget that for all their flaws, the dudes are still in charge and are the main characters who get the most sympathy.

Also, the what? White Hetero Cis-dudes are the most celebrated group on the planet.

For a few years I called myself an egalitarian, which is ultimately what feminists and MRAs should be in the best of all possible world, but I decided that few Americans knew what that meant D: or could connect it to anything. So I reverted to MRA because that is really what I am, an advocate for the rights of men in family law courts.

and later

One of the largest parts of MRAs is fighting for equality for both men and women in family law courts.

These two claims are only consistent if you consider men have fewer (or lesser) rights than women in family law courts.

I was nothing but polite when i came here , but because i make statements that the majority disagree with look at the vitriolic attacks. Im just returning kind with kind

I hope you’re fooling yourself, because I sure as shit don’t fall for this, and not just because your type always makes this tit-for-tat argument.

If you really thought engaging in ad homs meant one lacked an argument, you wouldn’t make them, because in doing so you’d either be admitting that you lack an actual argument or tipping your hat that the “ad hom means you don’t have an argument” whine is just that—an emotional rhetorical ploy, and an overused one at that.

In reality, you’re just as happy as anybody at the chance to insult someone, and you jumped at the chance to do so when you saw other people doing so, your bullshit about logical fallacies notwithstanding.

I’m not actually sure whether or not you have the self-awareness to see who you really are, but I sure as hell do, kid.

So, take your pretenses and your post hoc justifications and stuff ’em up your ass. You’re a shitty little fuck who likes to argue on the internet, and doesn’t particularly care how he scores points (or where the shift key is), and that makes you one of a million.

This whole thing is just silly.
PZ is an older gentlemen who is not following TJ’s videos so he doesn’t understand the layers beneath the language he uses.

If he had watched TJ’s videos(especially about feminism) it would be quite clear that he is a true humanitarian and egalitarian.
Do you even know that he raised a lot of money for Hurricane Katarina victims?

This is so stupid, there is not a single hateful bone in his body. You are the ones who are self-immolating, anyone who watches his videos just thinks how foolish and out of touch you are now…

One of the largest parts of MRAs is fighting for equality for both men and women in family law courts.

Unfortunately, the MRAs we get around here are misogynist assholes who pride themselves on being anti-feminist. Perhaps there are other MRAs who are kind, nice, friendly people. But the evidence for this rare breed is very scant.

Um, do you have links? Because I really haven’t seen any of this from self-described MRAs. And I don’t care if they’re “fighting the good fight” some of the time if they spend the rest of their time banging on about how bitches ain’t shit.

I’ll say this, if your entire conception of MRAs is that they’re anti-feminist vocal douchebags than I’d wager you don’t know, understand, or have even done your skeptical duty in finding out what the MRA is all about.

Get over yourself. I don’t have any obligation to search every corner of the web for the three people calling themselves MRAs who aren’t complete assholes. If you can’t control the public image of your own “group” that’s your own fucking problem. Why would I even go out looking for the “good” MRAs when the only exposure I’ve EVER had to MRAs in the first place is a swarm of misogynistic asshats? Do you go looking for the “good” KKK members who are just trying to make sure white folks get a fair deal in court?

Maybe you should have done your “skeptical duty” when you first got a butt-hurt about feminists, huh?

this issue is a side one to the fact that most of these trolls in this thread appear to be TAA supporters specifically and the term MRA was used in a derogatory manner by someone here in this thread in reference to TAA and his ilk before anyone associated with or supporting TAA made such a claim.

You’re aware that this TJ person’s comments linked in the OP were on the “Men’s Rights” subreddit, right? Really – click on the link to read the description.

And, if that didn’t take you back to every argument since Arpanet, there was this oldie-but-still-just-an-oldie:

And if anyone found my first post offensive even though it was not directed at anyone in particular, it just confirms my suspiscion that the majority of people here are just looking for any excuse to be offended.

“Thanks for proving my point for me!”

Is there a meme I’m unaware of in which people purposefully try to be unremarkable and uninteresting? Is using tired clichés and declaring yourself the smartest akin to Anonymous wearing the Guy Fawkes mask or something?

I think I need Walton to explain again why everyone has intrinsic value, even when there’s not a jot of personality in them.

Well, bit of a stupid overload here. Looks like another flounce from crecy. And some kind of troll tactic that I don’t have a name for. Also, datasolutions is now trying to defend a rape threatening asshat again. I’m thinking we can make up for last month’s lack of bans.

IcumwhenIKillMen is part of a subreddit that says it’s not Ok for people to joke about hurting/killing women, and that same subreddit is ok with the screen name.

It’s that hypocrisy that started the whole thing. TJ knew it was a joke.

Yes. Because the correct and completely way to respond to hypocrisy is to spam threats of rape threat and continue to do so when someone mentions that they are rape victim.

Seriously, fuck off.

PZ is an older gentlemen who is not following TJ’s videos so he doesn’t understand the layers beneath the language he uses.

Many of the rest of us do know of these “layers”. It affects PZ’s assessment not at all. It remains reprehensible. I would suggest either shutting the fuck up or taking a long nap in a burning building if you consider on being such a blatant rape apologist.

This is the video that made me initially dislike TJ. He’s been piling it deeper ever since.

Also, to the username complainers, if ICumWhenIKillMen had started threatening to murder people she was arguing with, you would have a point. TJ wasn’t using rape as some sort of comical exaggeration of people’s perceptions of him. He was threatening rape as an argument tactic. There’s a huge difference, even if we assume he wasn’t serious and everyone knows that.

Of course it is, and anyone with half a brain understands it’s no different than saying “I hope you die in a fire”. Of course if he had said that no one would care because it wouldn’t have given his feminist haters the opportunity to further mischaracterize him to their mindless sheep, who will assume without ever watching his videos that that characterization is accurate. Those admittedly stupid comments say nothing more about about TAA’s position on woman’s rights than the “I hope you die in a fire” comment would tell us about someone opinion on fire safety, or their support for firefighters.

If he had watched TJ’s videos(especially about feminism) it would be quite clear that he is a true humanitarian and egalitarian.
Do you even know that he raised a lot of money for Hurricane Katarina victims?

This is so stupid, there is not a single hateful bone in his body.

Okay, that’s a No True Egalitarian™, a But Hitler Loved Dogs Brand non sequitur™, and an unsupportable hyperbolic claim.

That’s a shit-for-brains trifecta. Fuck off, moron. You were better off crying about how Daddy PZ let you down.

I do, Brownian, and from the beginning I’ve been asking for links to the folks he’s saying are reasonable and are MRAs.

This isn’t a novel claim for me. MRAs frequently claims that they are unfairly represented by the hateful fucksticks. I have asked for evidence of this claim, and to be linked to what the person would consider “Reasonable and good”. The response is usually “A Voice for Men”, who’s activism literally does not extend past trolling feminists (They had to call off their first ‘protest march’ for ‘logistical reasons’). Oh, and AVFM can only be called “reasonable” by a lackwit.

If I recall correctly, after exceptional effort and months of multiple people asking the question, 2 or 3 blogs were found that were reasonable, and they weren’t running anything in particular off the net. And that’s asking people who insist the MRM isn’t hateful, who can’t provide solid evidence of it.

Wow, people are seriously pretending that data doesn’t support the fact that men have effectively “fewer (or lesser) rights than women in family law courts”?

Show us the data. This posturing proves nothing.

Make sure the data represents how often a man who doesn’t succeeds in not getting custody, because that’s actually really relevant to this question. Getting custody is not always a victory from the perspective of the people in court.

Of course it is, and anyone with half a brain understands it’s no different than saying “I hope you die in a fire”. Of course if he had said that no one would care because it wouldn’t have given his feminist haters the opportunity to further mischaracterize him to their mindless sheep, who will assume without ever watching his videos that that characterization is accurate. Those admittedly stupid comments say nothing more about about TAA’s position on woman’s rights than the “I hope you die in a fire” comment would tell us about someone opinion on fire safety, or their support for firefighters.

Yeah. I’m not ready to throw this guy into the OMG-he’s-beyond-the-pale Pharyngula-sanctioned shitlist yet. We all have bad days where we get angry and just do whatever it takes to piss our opponents off. Seems like he had one here. Yeah, he said some bad stuff. That can happen.

If he had watched TJ’s videos(especially about feminism) it would be quite clear that he is a true humanitarian and egalitarian.

Oh, but we know that PZ Myers is a true humanitarian.
What, you mean TJ? I watched 2 minutes into this video where he manages to read a comprehensive list of things that are rape (you know, like fucking unconscious women) and claims that ” Well, that’s vague but not too crazy”.
And you call that a humanitarian?
Ya know, people watched his videos and came to the conclusion that they are shit. That’s not the problem, 99% of youtube are shit, but it’s misogynistic shit.

Oh, there’s stupid alright, and it’s not in the people who don’t find continual rape threats to be funny. It’s not funny, it’s not comedy, it’s not loving, it’s not friendly, it’s not just hyperbolic, it’s not hip and so on. It’s stupidity and hatefulness.

@339 – Because you’re supposedly a skeptical, rational, empirical atheist who doesn’t just digest and regurgitate everything you hear. I know that I did a lot of searching regarding feminism after my awful experience because I knew that personal anecdote and experience is NOT the same as hard data and the actuality of reality.

But hey, do whatever you want. I’m not forcing you to do anything, I was simply pointing out someone’s logical flaw much much earlier in this thread.

mikepaps: There is a huge difference between saying “I hope you die in a fire” in exasperation (I’m still not in favor if the phrase), and using threats of rape in an argument. If there isn’t one, please let me know why.

Jackrawlinson, sorry, but it’s not just a ‘bad day’ thing. Every time he’s made comments or a video on feminism or sexism or elevatorgate it has become obvious that he is a disgusting little creature. And this latest stunt of his is just the most horrible example of that. Also, most of his videos are frightfully uninformed. He could at least do some research before spouting bullshit all over youtube.

Oh FFS, do you think you can ever manage to not be an asshole? Yes, people can say bad stuff, however, jumping on the Bitches ain’t shit train, repeatedly making rape threats and consciously triggering people who have been raped isn’t just saying some bad stuff.

Because you’re supposedly a skeptical, rational, empirical atheist who doesn’t just digest and regurgitate everything you hear.

I know you don’t hold yourself to that standard. I know this because you’re able to get out of bed in the morning without googling “waking up strategies” (I’m giving you the benefit of the doubt here). It’s humanly impossible to research every fucking three letter combo that’s floating out there on the internet even if I didn’t have, you know, a job and interests of my own and stuff.

How about you? Did you ever go on your quest for the “good” KKK members? That’s three letters just like “MRA”. Unless you did and have some links for me you can stop pretending that I have any obligation to validate your identity as an MRA. You hung that albatross on your own neck, don’t complain when I point out it smells like shit.

The response is usually “A Voice for Men”, who’s activism literally does not extend past trolling feminists (They had to call off their first ‘protest march’ for ‘logistical reasons’). Oh, and AVFM can only be called “reasonable” by a lackwit.

Hmm, good point, ruteekatreya. Well, the worst thing that can ever happen to somebody is to be told that one cannot say whatever one wants at all times without it pissing off other people, so I guess they’re out fighting the good fight, I guess.

jackrawlinson
Your name rings a bell, but it’s one with a bad sound.
Yeah, because he said some sensible things, you’re willing to overlook all the hatefull things that obviously don’t affect you personall because you’re neither a woman nor a rape-victim.
Way to go.
Whom is he also allowed to attack?
Is it OK to tell Holocaust survivors that you’re going to make them Holocaust victims if they don’t shut up because they fucking annoy you?

Of course it is, and anyone with half a brain understands it’s no different than saying “I hope you die in a fire”

Because there’s just as much a chance of a previous rape victim reading rape jokes and threats as there is that you’ll say “go die in a fire” to somebody who has, in fact, died in a fire once or twice. Riiight.

jackrawlison, how about you put him on the shitlist until he proves he doesn’t actually mean what he’s said over and over and is genuinely apologetic for it? Because I honestly don’t think that an otherwise decent person repeatedly threatens someone with rape and laughs about someone being a rape victim in order to continue posting rape threats just because they were feeling a little under the weather.

Because there’s just as much a chance of a previous rape victim reading rape jokes and threats as there is that you’ll say “go die in a fire” to somebody who has, in fact, died in a fire once or twice. Riiight.

I hate that sentence, I’ve complained about it before (there are also people who lost loved ones in a fire), but you made me laugh :)

@stgulik, I understand that much of the time, feminists don’t focus on injustices in the current system against men (although the reasons for this should be obvious, I hope) and I understand wanting to find a more focused advocacy group.

But that really doesn’t mean we aren’t attacking the very things you also identify as problems. For example, when you talk about:

There are also advocates that are working to raise awareness about the massive overload of negative male stereotypes on television and in advertising.

WEALTHY, HANDSOME, STRONG, AND WITH ENDLESS HARD-ONS: IS MASCULINITY IMPOSSIBLE?

A cartoon image of fitness is being sold to men as if it were actual fitness. And men are being taught that there’s something wrong with them if they can’t get there.

But this ideal of masculinity isn’t just difficult to achieve. It isn’t just narrow; it isn’t just rigid; it isn’t just out of reach for some or even most men. It is, quite literally, unattainable. Even the fitness models themselves can’t attain it: not without nightmarish physical ordeals, camera tricks, and Photoshop. It is a carrot being dangled in front of a donkey — which the donkey will never, ever get to eat.
…
The world is telling you to turn yourself into a unicorn and start shitting diamonds.

The world is giving you an impossible task. It’s not just a stupid task; it’s not just a pointless task; it’s not just a needlessly confining task; it’s not just a task that will make you miserable. It is, quite literally, unattainable. You will never, ever be man enough.

So stop giving a damn. And be whoever you are.

I don’t think any of us blame you for wanting to pursue fairness in custody, or fighting routine circumcision for infants or pushing for greater equity in employers offering parenting flexibility options to fathers and mothers. But from what we’ve been able to tell, the averaged swell of proclaimed MRAs do not do that. We see more men identifying as MRAs who want to blame feminism for their woes rather than work with feminists when we find common cause.

MRA groups and feminists are not opposites in message, movement or attitude. (Put another way, both sides are not “just as bad.”) When you look at the average in feminist advocacy, you don’t see the sex-negative, anti-trans exclusionary elements as leaders. And this has been true for a long time. When I think of current prominent feminists, I can think of a number of those who I disagree with, but they are far outweighed.

The reason that we don’t abandon the label feminist is that the power and history that come with it are not insignificant; the base ideas that women are people and deserve to be treated as such are still relevant and powerful. When we ask you why you want to identify as MRA, it’s because we don’t see a similar positive background for you to work from.

Because there’s just as much a chance of a previous rape victim reading rape jokes and threats as there is that you’ll say “go die in a fire” to somebody who has, in fact, died in a fire once or twice. Riiight.

I know someone who just barely survived an explosion and fire and suffered from very serious PTSD for years because of it. As others have pointed out, it never really goes away but there’s techniques and strategies for avoiding or suppressing triggers. Even so, I wouldn’t ever tell someone “I hope you die in a fire” because I know that is probably a trigger for thousands of people out there.

So it’s not a good defense of TJ and it really is something that (I think) people shouldn’t say.

I love it when his fans use the argument that we don’t watch all of his videos, so we obviously don’t know how he’s always been an asshole. Yeah, so it’s nothing new. It’s still ignorant, asshole behavior, and he’s still dead wrong about his stance. We don’t need to watch all of his videos to get a better idea of just how much of an asshole he really is… we already know.

Heh, that’s recent, and they still rely on stereotyped bullshit to get anything done. Just because they have ‘nicer’ horrific stereotypes don’t actually mean they aren’t perpetuating any, like Matlack’s horrific article that drew the ire of a number of feminists. I will grant that this is a *step up*, but that only speaks to how horrific the MRM is, not to how good the site is.

Your second site is news to me, and already off to a bad start. It seems ot me that it’s basically just a male version of white people complaining about “Reverse Racism”.

There’s so much wrong with this, I don’t know where to begin. Wait, I take htat back, I’m going to start with “You do realize that he didn’t suffer criminal penalties *because* the standard of evidence is preponderance of the law”, and there’s so many more if I feel like being remotely legal.

Hell, there isn’t even a claim to doing activism; in the one about VAWA, all the activism is even specifically placed on the shoulders of other organizations. They’re not even signal boosting a charity for dudes or anything.

So it’s not a good defense of TJ and it really is something that (I think) people shouldn’t say.

There are a lot of things a lot of people think people shouldn’t say on the internet. All we can do is hope is people like you don’t actually have any control over what people say. OH, and I’m not implying you would control what people would say if you could. I’m talking about those who would.

The American Judges Association has found that approximately 70% of batterers succeed in convincing authorities that the victim is unfit for or undeserving of sole custody. Another way of saying this is that 70% of batterers obtain sole or joint custody.
– American Judges Association, “Domestic Violence and the Courtroom: Understanding the Problem . . . Knowing the Victim” http://aja.ncsc.dni.us/domviol/page5.html (at “Forms of Emotional Battering. . . Threats to Harm or Take Away Children”)

—

A survey of battered women by the Arizona Coalition Against Domestic Violence found that courts awarded joint or sole custody to the alleged batterers 56-74% of the time (depending on the county). Many of these cases involved documented child abuse or adult abuse.
– Arizona Coalition Against Domestic Violence, Battered Mothers’ Testimony Project: A Human Rights Approach to Child Custody and Domestic Violence (June 2003), pp. 33-34, 47-49

—

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court Gender Bias Task Force found that 94% of fathers who actively sought custody received sole or joint custody, regardless of whether there was a history of abuse. While fathers received primary physical custody 29% of the time, mothers received primary physical custody in only 7% of the contested cases. The Study also cited other research which similarly found that fathers who sought custody received primary physical custody 2/3 of the time, with mothers receiving it less than ¼ of the time; and another study which found that fathers seeking custody received joint or sole custody 79% of the time, with mothers receiving sole custody in only 15% of those cases (compared to fathers’ sole custody in 41% of the cases).
– Gender Bias Study at 831-832 and citing Middlesex Divorce Research Group relitigation study and Phear et al., 1983.

—

The California Protective Parents Association works with nonabusive parents in custody disputes. Our research of 362 cases shows that 81 percent of protective parents (mostly battered mothers) had primary custody when they asked family courts for safety for their children. Each mother spent an average of $100,000 on her case. The outcomes are horrifying. In the end, a scant 5 percent of mothers retained custody while the abuser had supervised visits. Most children who were ripped from their protective mothers continue to report abuse. Their desperate cries, present-day echoes of the “lost children” of Francoism, go unheard by family court. Connie Valentine Policy director, California Protective Parents Association

@358 – There are 13 states that begin with Joint Custody as the standard model, and 22 more that go that route if both parents ask for it (if the mother disagrees then the “best interests of the child” outweigh this position. This phrase has historically been used to grant mothers sole custody over fathers.). All states now recognize it as an option, but 15 states require extensive legal work and agreements before they will grant it.

Many states still automatically grant payment of alimony and child care to the parent who makes less independently in regards to who actually gains custody of the children.

The latest data I could find regarding the current rates of father’s gaining sole custody was 13% from 2002. However, that’s super old, Joint Custody has become way more popular within the state courts since then, and even in my case I never received sole custody, just joint legal custody and sole physical custody with my ex having only limited and controlled visitation (she’d go to a place and get to see our daughter for a short period of time as long as she maintained her drug treatment and counseling) with the option of expanded visitation rights for her in the future if she completed all the things the court asked her to complete (which I didn’t ask for, just a note, all of these things were completely the court’s idea).

Even still, divorce data isn’t always easily obtained because not all of it is part of the public record, especially when it concerns minors (children).

Actually, to add to my previous point, we’ve been hearing a lot of arguments along the lines of “if there are good MRAs, why don’t they call out the bad ones?”

TheAmzingAtheist has been popular a long time and his misogyny is hardly new. How many people objected two and half years ago when he was using misogynistic slurs against teenage girls? I’ll give credit to Laci Green, but it seems that most people didn’t give a shit when he went after Christian apologists and only started caring when he jumped on Rebecca Watson. In fact, most of the mega-popular YouTube atheists (except AronRa) are reactionary assholes, but your big atheist writers ignore it unless they start throwing slurs and accusations against other atheists, To an outside observer, it looks a lot like the problem isn’t so much misogyny as misogyny directed at people one agrees with.

There are a lot of things a lot of people think people shouldn’t say on the internet. All we can do is hope is people like you don’t actually have any control over what people say. OH, and I’m not implying you would control what people would say if you could. I’m talking about those who would.

Honestly, and somewhat ironically, I would be inclined to provisionally accept the idea that this was really just childish outrage/insult one-upsmanship, if only TAA and his defenders didn’t get all poutraged that “whiny feminazis” or whatever were complaining.

Basically, once anybody says that their critics are just being “politically correct”, that person loses all credibility. If he’d gone, “Yeah, that’s me, I’m craaaazy!” in response to this, then yeah, ok, I’m not going to watch his videos because I don’t really want to listen to that shit, but my dislike would be much more passive. Once anybody retreats into the “How dare you be offended! I’m offended that you are offended! Your offense is irrational!” that kinda bullshit? I’m done.

There are a lot of things a lot of people think people shouldn’t say on the internet. All we can do is hope is people like you don’t actually have any control over what people say. OH, and I’m not implying you would control what people would say if you could. I’m talking about those who would.

Oh my goodness, the pre-emptive censorship-thought-control victim card.
Cupcake, nobody says you’re not allowed to say such things.
We’re saying that you’re an absolute asshole for doing so and that we’re going to call you out good and .oud on it.
We’re also going to educate people who actually do care that such behaviour does cause harm so they can avoid it because they’re not assholes.
And we’re going to create safe-spaces for rape victims. Which means that you are not invited

jumping on the Bitches ain’t shit train, repeatedly making rape threats and consciously triggering people who have been raped isn’t just saying some bad stuff.

If someone is going to be “triggered” by insults, or impotent threats on the internet they need to get the fuck off the internet.If someone is going to be “triggered” by insults, or impotent threats on the internet they need to get the fuck off the internet.

Wherefore your non sequitur?

(You realise you are implicitly endorsing the claim you quote, right?)

They don’t call themselves an MRA organization. In any case, their statement of philosophy is fucking hilarious:

1.To provide pro-male activists with news and information that will aid them in working toward establishing equal rights for men and the improvement of men’s lives.

Their most recent focus seems to be joining with Concerned Women for America in opposing the reauthorization of the Violence against Women Act by appealing to Republican senators. Are you suggesting they’re not anti-feminist?

If someone is going to be “triggered” by insults, or impotent threats on the internet they need to get the fuck off the internet.

Aren’t you adorable. Triggering is real, so you can lose the scare quotes. Threats aren’t in the same class as insults, and any asshole who thinks it is alright to use threats of rape to insult someone is reflecting a great deal of how they feel and think. Generally, it’s an easy enough matter to insult someone with out bringing gender into it at all, let alone resort to threats of rape.

I’ve been dealing with PTSD most of my life and the person who raped, beat and attempted to murder me has quite a bit to do with that. I don’t take threats of rape lightly, as they reveal an incredibly ugly mindset on the part of a person who thinks they are okay.

As for you claim of impotent threats, nope. No way to know that. A healthy number of people have been stalked on the net, which has then gone on to stalking in meatspace. You don’t get to decide which threats are dangerous and which aren’t. You shouldn’t be supporting asspimples who think it’s amusing to issue threats.

The latest data I could find regarding the current rates of father’s gaining sole custody was 13% from 2002.

See, I know you think this is kinda important, but it’s a little meaningless absent the fact that women average about 2 and a half times the child rearing time that men do, and courts in the USA are biased towards the primary caregiver…

So I’m supposed to limit my speech because someone might be offended by it. Sorry it doesn’t work that way, on the internet, or on the street. If someone doesn’t want to be subjected to my speech it’s incumbent upon them to avoid it.

So I’m supposed to limit my speech because someone might be offended by it. Sorry it doesn’t work that way, on the internet, or on the street. If someone doesn’t want to be subjected to my speech it’s incumbent upon them to avoid it.

Umm, I don’t think I said any of that. I think I suggested you get the fuck off the internet because you’re part of the problem with the internet. You’re like a one-person cesspool. I’m not about to claim human cesspools don’t have rights, but I do wish they’d stay the fuck away from me — just because the sights, sounds, and smells they emit are nauseating.

It’s cute that you keep wanting to shout “oppression” every time I point out that you’re an asshole but it’s getting boring pretty quick.

Really? A lot of people with a few thousand subs (Mainly Laci Green and Richard Coughlan) have called out TJ in the past, as have a lot of obscure YouTube atheists. A search of Scienceblogs shows some approving linking in the Pharyngula comments, but no one save Greg Laden calling him out that every pwnage video he has ever made directed at a woman is dripping with misogyny. The conclusion that this is becuse said women were mostly conservative Christians is speculative, but I think reasonable.

Dude, you can say whatever you want, nobody is censoring you. But people are going to respond to your bullshit. It’s about accepting the consequences of what you say and in what forum. You say shit like that here, you’re going to get yelled at.

So I’m supposed to limit my speech because someone might be offended by it. Sorry it doesn’t work that way, on the internet, or on the street. If someone doesn’t want to be subjected to my speech it’s incumbent upon them to avoid it.

Are you pretending to be unaware of the laws surrounding uttering threats in most jurisdictions, or are you actually that stupid?

Regarding the battering issue brought up here: Misreporting physical abuse is a common and frequent tactic of people who are divorcing. Reported cases and laws that require the larger person to be arrested in domestic fight cases can and do skew these numbers something fierce.

For example, my ex called the cops and claimed I was beating her while I was literally one and a half hours away obliviously eating dinner with friends in a public restaurant. She was high, but the cops sent out a patrol car and an officer to talk to me outside the restaurant. She, the officer, found it ludicrous that I could have sped from her house to be eating dinner for 45 minutes in public when the alleged attack happened 15 minutes prior to her arrival and we were 75 minutes from the site of the alleged attack. She still brought it up in court. Fortunately, at that point I’d gotten smart and lawyered up and we had the police report.

And I have some serious questions regarding #388 and the last entry:

The California Protective Parents Association works with nonabusive parents in custody disputes. Our research of 362 cases shows that 81 percent of protective parents (mostly battered mothers) had primary custody when they asked family courts for safety for their children. Each mother spent an average of $100,000 on her case. The outcomes are horrifying. In the end, a scant 5 percent of mothers retained custody while the abuser had supervised visits. Most children who were ripped from their protective mothers continue to report abuse. Their desperate cries, present-day echoes of the “lost children” of Francoism, go unheard by family court. Connie Valentine Policy director, California Protective Parents Association

Most custody cases run $3,500-$10,000 dollars. Mine was expensive compared to the average because it took almost seven years and ran me about $28,000. These numbers don’t seem to gel, do you have a direct link to that study? Especially this line, “a scant 5 percent of mothers retained custody while the abuser had supervised visits.” Supervised visits is a legal term and it seems to be taken out of context here. A parent usually has supervised visits when they DO NOT have custody because they have some sort of problem (drugs, alcohol, abuse, etc.). So are they saying the women in this case had supervised visits and only 5% of them retained custody (understandable) or that the fathers had supervised visits and only 5% of THEM retained custody or that only 5% of the mothers retained custody after the fathers were given supervised visits, and to be clear what sort of custody? Sole Custody, Joint Custody? Did the mothers in these cases go from having sole custody with the fathers having supervised visits and later won the right to join custody after completing the court’s required mandates or that the fathers somehow gained sole custody in 95% of these cases where the mothers previously had sole custody. Seriously, this is not clear at all.

Also, I think we were talking about TAA and how much a jerkstore he was, so we might be a “TAD” off-topic.

If the guy is mentally ill and needs help, does that make him a bad person? A terrible person?
As much as I hate to say it, the New Atheist movement is staring to sound like the old religious movement in this thread.
Personally, I think he’s pretty fucking intelligent AND has great mental issues I would like to see him get help with.
So fucking ban me for speaking my mind truthfully.

Regarding the battering issue brought up here: Misreporting physical abuse is a common and frequent tactic of people who are divorcing. Reported cases and laws that require the larger person to be arrested in domestic fight cases can and do skew these numbers something fierce.

Tells me everything I need to know about you. So much for “good” MRAs.

So I’m supposed to limit my speech because someone might be offended by it. Sorry it doesn’t work that way, on the internet, or on the street. If someone doesn’t want to be subjected to my speech it’s incumbent upon them to avoid it.

You’re supposed to avoid making threats of violence because it’s threatening. And it does work that way on the street, on the internet, and anywhere with any pretensions of law, justice, stability or order.
Really, if I announce on YouTube that I’m going to rape you with my fist, it’s incumbent upon you to avoid reading it?
Your new society sounds charming.

Do you realize that youtube-drama doesn’t feature much on most of these blogs in any respect?
Not the good ones, not the bad ones.

True, most drama about YouTube figures that makes it here comes from when they come up outside the YouTube sphere (ZOMGItsCriss being a relatively recent example), but these people have huge audiences and I think deserve attention. This is especially promblematic when people will approvingly link to videos they like, which serves to promote these assholes (by these assholes I mean TJ, Pat Condell and, to a lesser degree, Thunderf00t), then ignore every reactionary, bigoted thing they do unless they go all out.

If someone doesn’t want to be subjected to my speech it’s incumbent upon them to avoid it.

I highly suggest you look up exceptions to your 1st amendment rights before someone shoves them down your throat out on a dark street somewhere, when you spout off your idiocy at them that they should just avoid your offensiveness.

You know, you could have expressed that exact same opinion in a less confrontational way and no one would have blinked. “Maybe he has mental health issues and needs some counseling.” Yes, if there was any reason to believe that it might suggest some of the criticism of his behavior is unwarranted. As it is I kind of think you should be banned just because you literally asked for it.

So I’m supposed to limit my speech because someone might be offended by it. Sorry it doesn’t work that way, on the internet, or on the street. If someone doesn’t want to be subjected to my speech it’s incumbent upon them to avoid it.

I have no desire to limit your speech, say what you want. If, in real life, I do not like it, I will know enough to avoid you. And online, in blogs like this, the owner can ban you.

I have no problems with free speech, it lets me know who are the people that I want to avoid.

It did to me as well. Was he one of the assclams claiming that the 15-year-old girl who’d shown a picture of herself with a book was partially responsible for the anal rape threats she received because she had “sexualized” the thread? Those were some of the most disturbing arguments I’ve ever read.

Just in case you worried no one caught it, I thought I should let you know I grinned big-time at this.

I AIN’T YER SPRITZHEAD GIRLFRIEND!!

Stgulik: Go read Manboobz.com for a few weeks, then come back to us and tell us that MRAs are “misunderstood.”

As for the “Good Men Project”… please. They might not be frothing Spearhead types, but they’re incredibly paternalistic toward women, they’re sexually prudish, and they assume everybody is heterosexual, cisgendered, monogamous, and seeking to get married and have children. Oh, and yeah, Hugo Schwyzer.

In the meantime, kri kri kri some moar about how oppressed teh poor menzes are.

Crecy, #177: In addition to the other explanations you have received, some men are physically smaller and/or weaker than some women. And you’re shifting the goalposts at #201: You asked how female–>male rape was possible, not how common it was. Oh, and nice gendered slur there at #283.

The Pint, #181: I don’t know how old The Amazing Asshole is, but I’m friends with more than a few Gen-Y people and, trust me, it’s not a generational thing, other than what Brownian said about being a young man in this culture. It’s an asshole thing.

Ing, #217: You beat me to it.

Nigel, #220:

So when you try to defend TAA by saying, “The person he was cruelly taunting about their rape was a man, so it’s not that bad, amirite?” you’re just showing you’re either very insensitive, or very naive.

He’s also being much more misandrist than any of TAA’s critics here.

Dmu111: Yeah, accommodationists are much worse people than atheists who make rape threats with intent to cause debilitating flashbacks in rape victims and who also threaten to punch women “in the tits.” Truly a finely wrought moral compass you have there.

Sparky_ca: That’s funny, as “starfish” is also a slang term for the anus.

Slignot: …. dear god. There are no words.

Anthrohume: Fuck you and fuck your fatphobia.

Jack Rawlinson!! How ya been, dude? Hit on any women in elevators at 4 a.m. lately?

Actually, I take back what I said about Greg Laden. He linked to a video featuring TheAmazingAtheist (and fellow assholes FakeSagan and Pat Condell) and a commenter called TJ out. It’s actually an example of what I was complaining about.

It’s hilarious you can say that with a straight face, given that the quote I posted said exactly that. Oh and as far as sharing my opinions with subhumans I’m doing exactly that when responding to you. Except the subhumans are those who would attempt to stifle free speech, and thus are your fellows.

It’s hilarious you can say that with a straight face, given that the quote I posted said exactly that. Oh and as far as sharing my opinions with subhumans I’m doing exactly that when responding to you. Except the subhumans are those who would attempt to stifle free speech, and thus are your fellows.

Grrr, damn Verizon. Why? “HopeLine® from Verizon will also make a donation to a local domestic violence agency to help the organization increase awareness of domestic violence and further prevention efforts.” Judging from the context of another post, their gripe here is that they think this is related to a myth about Superbowl Sunday being the day of the year when the most domestic violence occurs. How they go from that to opposing any company that donates to domestic violence causes during the Super bowl is left for only MRAs to know.

The problem here, though, is with reverse discrimination. In order to be fair, basically the same number of players from each sex need to play. So sports such as basketball, soccer, track and gymnastics are fine because each sex can play them. Then you have the problem with football. Football is a male sport only. So in order to make it fair for the females, we either need to make a football team with the same number of females or cut smaller men’s sports programs.

Most colleges, including Iowa State, chose to do such. Wrestling was the first and largest victim to this rule at the beginning. In all, 121 schools have cut their wrestling programs, and despite all of the tradition and success of Iowa State’s wrestling program, that number was almost 122. Swimming, golf, tennis, soccer, track and many other smaller men’s sports have been cut. There are many talented athletes that play sports like soccer and baseball, but because of Title IX they don’t have the opportunity here to play at the collegiate level.

The report also called for more research on “sexism” and urged “collective action” against media messages that “objectify and degrade women.” In the familiar jargon of feminist theory, the CDC said: “It is important to continue addressing the beliefs, attitudes and messages that are deeply imbedded in our social structures.”’

“I finally plugged my TV in again in order to see what new male-bashing commercials were airing. I didn’t have to wait long. Reebok had two commercials featuring men acting like fools, with the theme music being “This is a Man’s World.” In one of these commercials, a man walks into a gym full of fit women, and trips and stumbles over the exercise equipment. At the end he is rescued from a machine by one of these strong women, and the message “It’s a Woman’s World” flashes on the screen. I think that this is once again a highly offensive way of selling products. I’ll be sure not to buy anything from Reebok in the future. Apparently these misandristic ads are part of a new campaign called “It’s a Woman’s World.”

So, I guess the difference between a good MRA and a bad MRA is just in levels of overt misogyny. Both still completely fail to understand male privilege.

mikepaps: We aren’t trying to stifle free speech, we are simply saying that those who threaten rape, and use rape as a conversational element are not exactly the best people. Not trying to tell you what you can say anywhere else but on this blog. The people here try to make this a safe space for people who have been sexually abused (to include rape, molestation, etc.) All we ask is that you spew your misogynistic rape apologia elsewhere. Where we have every right to call you an asshat for saying those things.

It’s hilarious you can say that with a straight face, given that the quote I posted said exactly that. Oh and as far as sharing my opinions with subhumans I’m doing exactly that when responding to you. Except the subhumans are those who would attempt to stifle free speech, and thus are your fellows.

This is why I like free speech, I now know that you are a detestable person that I want to have nothing to do with. I would not have known that if you just kept quiet.

Really, if I announce on YouTube that I’m going to rape you with my fist, it’s incumbent upon you to avoid reading it?

If comments like that are going to trigger some sort of PTSD then I suggest you never have a youtube channel. And as I said above I don’t approve of such comments, but the last thing I want to see is speech be stifled to avoid offending people, whether in cases like this, or because insulting Mohammad might cause someone to go on a murderous rampage.

This is random, and waaaay at the bottom of the comments, but I would like to thank you for what you do. As an atheist woman raising two young daughters to be atheists, it’s incredibly comforting to see someone so prominent speaking out against this behavior. How am I supposed to make sure my daughters are safe and free in this world? The “church,” offers them nothing but servitude and shame, and if there weren’t truly amazing atheists like you, I’d fear there was no safe place for women at all. Thank you, pz meyers, skepchick, and other feminist atheists; without you, I’d fear there was no place at all in the world for a truly free woman.

As others have mentioned, the “ICumWhenIKillMen” username is used by a member of the sub-reddit “shitredditsays”. It’s one of the few places on reddit where you can go to blow off steam about the disgusting bigotry and racism that goes on in that place. It’s a sub-reddit used to mock all the terrible stuff that’s upvoted in that place.

Redditors regularly upvote comments from regulars with usernames like I_RAPE_PEOPLE_II and Gradual_Nigger. The ICWIKM name was created as a reaction to that. Someone describes this better in the comment linked below. “SRS” in this comment is refering to the “shitredditsays” sub-reddit.

Thanks, Ace, I was trying to peg where you were going, and that clinches it.

Ladies Against Women should be ignored, because they advocate paternalistic bullshit to be made law. I don’t care how many women they have.

Read the blockquote. That was a response to someone complaining about the low quality of trolling, so I threw out a better trolling. I’m quite serious in my complaints that TJ has been a sexist asshole forver and most people were happy to ignore it and laugh at his videos until a few months ago. His Elevator Gate video seems to be what triggered a ot of the pushback. People still don’t care about Pat Condell’s xenophobic fear-mongering.

If someone is going to be “triggered” by insults, or impotent threats on the internet they need to get the fuck off the internet.

This fucking argument is as fucking tedious as the “hurr hurr! I’m just fighting against ‘political correctness*!'” bullshit.

Nice job silencing victims of rape. No, really, you deserve a standing ovation or some shit for your pathological lack of empathy. Victims should just shut the fuck up and get the fuck out of sight when the big, strong men are talking, am I right?

@Ms. Daisy Cutter, I agree. The level of emotional baggage with an attack like this is incomprehensible. To be able to recover (and repair a relationship with your younger sister) after something like this requires strength and love I can’t fathom. I love and admire this man with all my heart, and I’m glad he and my mother have had each other’s friendship for so long.

Yet it was only months ago that we got official CDC statistics that would even count what happened here as a rape of multiple victims. And we still have people claiming that this rape is literally not possible because boners=consent.

And as I said above I don’t approve of such comments, but the last thing I want to see is speech be stifled to avoid offending people, whether in cases like this, or because insulting Mohammad might cause someone to go on a murderous rampage.

Dude, relax. Nobody’s trying to take away your first amendment rights to demonstrate you’re an asshole. Just stop getting your blood pressure up when we call you out for being an asshole.

It’s really quite simple. I’m not sure why you’re having such a hard time understanding.

“Yes. Because the correct and completely way to respond to hypocrisy is to spam threats of rape threat and continue to do so when someone mentions that they are rape victim. ”

At no point was I defending what TJ said to the rape victim, so please argue with what I’ve actually said or fuck off.

friedandburnt before:

It’s that hypocrisy that started the whole thing. TJ knew it was a joke.

You suggested that the “hypocrisy started the whole thing” and I responded that the hypocrisy is not sufficient to warrant “the whole thing”. Because that was the implication, the only conceivable point for bringing it up in the first place. The fact that you agree with me about TJ being unjustified is grand, but then that undercuts any fucking point you could have in mentioning the hypocrisy and “the whole thing” in the same sentence. Either the hypocrisy is evil enough to justify TAA’s reaction, or you were just saying that it was the cause of TAA’s reaction without any suggestion that the hypocrisy warranted that reaction. If you meant the former, you are backtracking now. If it’s the latter, you were stating the obvious about something no-one gives a fuck about, since, as you’ve admitted, it does nothing to justify TAA. So either you are a liar or a poor communicator who freaks the fuck out when slightly criticized for apparently making the same case that several other people had already made on this thread. Fuck off yourself.

People still don’t care about Pat Condell’s xenophobic fear-mongering.

I’ll be the first to admit that I haven’t been here for months, but the first time I ever heard of Pat Condell was when a regular here was blasting his ass for racism. In the time I was here, I made a habit of trying to prevent racism and jackassery, and because there are so few PoC who are atheists, this meant my primary efforts came out when discussing the religious. Maybe things changed, I don’t know. Maybe it’s not a big enough dealbreaker to atheists, (And I will not make any apology for the fact that atheism isn’t good at race, because it isn’t either, much like the rest of society), but I *Promise* you that this is not only brought out when atheists are attacked.

I mean, it’s the same with TAA. I didn’t hear about TAA at all until elevatorgate, when some sexist dudes linked him as support.

Really? A lot of people with a few thousand subs (Mainly Laci Green and Richard Coughlan) have called out TJ in the past, as have a lot of obscure YouTube atheists. A search of Scienceblogs shows some approving linking in the Pharyngula comments, but no one save Greg Laden calling him out that every pwnage video he has ever made directed at a woman is dripping with misogyny. The conclusion that this is becuse said women were mostly conservative Christians is speculative, but I think reasonable.

Well, I’m not going to argue that people are always as quick to condemn misogyny against conservative Christian women (though that might largely be because news of it doesn’t spread through the community as quickly). I will point out, though, that my first – long and supremely unpleasant – arguments about sexist and misogynistic language here, back in 2008 [!], concerned a horrible homophobic Christian woman in a video and Sarah Palin. PZ has put notices when he posts about conservative or Christian women that such comments won’t be tolerated, and they aren’t amongst the commenters here (we’ve also condemned these epithets when they’re directed at Abbie Smith – the fact that she directs them at others is immaterial).

I don’t follow anyone on YT, and I don’t believe I’d ever heard of this TJ guy before now.

Because there’s just as much a chance of a previous rape victim reading rape jokes and threats as there is that you’ll say “go die in a fire” to somebody who has, in fact, died in a fire once or twice. Riiight.

I’m not thrilled with the phrase, but “die in a fire” is not an active threat, unlike saying, “I’m going to rape you with my fist.”

But if I said, “Die in a fire,” to someone in an argument and then found out that the person had survived being trapped in a house fire, I wouldn’t do a TAA double down and start threatening to set that person on fire. I’d fucking apologize and then refrain from using that expression again.

ut if I said, “Die in a fire,” to someone in an argument and then found out that the person had survived being trapped in a house fire, I wouldn’t do a TAA double down and start threatening to set that person on fire. I’d fucking apologize and then refrain from using that expression again.

but the last thing I want to see is speech be stifled to avoid offending people

Do you really not see the difference between giving offense and making a direct physical threat? Between “I think you’re wrong” and “shut up or I’ll rape you?”
If we met on the street and you said the former, we’d have a discussion. If you said the latter, I wouldn’t wait to find out if you were exaggerating for effect. I would neutralize the threat.
Call me a “shitbag” (it’s happened) and I won’t even blink. Start telling me about violence that you intend to do to me and I will respond differently. Would you not do the same?

So I’m supposed to limit my speech because someone might be offended by it.

You’re supposed to realize that your actions (and, yes, even speech) have consequences. You don’t get a free pass for being a complete shitbag, unless you want to stop us from pointing out what a miserable little maggot you are.

It is not about controlling your sexuality, but liberating it — it most definitely does not say “you can’t have this kinda sex”. It does not judge your sexual behaviors and say “Those are aaaalll wrong.”

But if I said, “Die in a fire,” to someone in an argument and then found out that the person had survived being trapped in a house fire, I wouldn’t do a TAA double down and start threatening to set that person on fire.

Would you actually assume that the anonymous person who made that claim was telling the truth, or think it likely they were just trying to play the victim? I’ve been on the internet for 20 years, run a chat network for 12. I’ve seen people make every claim you can imagine, and discovered later it wasn’t true. Including claims of rape, fire, and deaths in the family. I guess I’m just a cynic, I don’t anything people claim without proof.

I’m glad he’s not on TGWTG.com anymore. They have a lot of good people and funny reviewers (Nostalgia Chick should be up most people’s alley here), and he was just poisoning the site, where he was The Distressed Watcher.

There was only one interesting series of videos he did, and that was basically a RiffTrax for bad music videos called Sour Note. It was actually pretty funny, but maybe it helps that he didn’t go into any sort of rape culture there. Otherwise, he was utter crap.

You do realize that you’ve absolutely no right to free speech here, don’t you? Pharyngula is not the US government.

We weren’t talking about Pharyngula, or any specific site, we were talking about the internet, or the street, and I never mentioned first amendment rights to anything. Please respond to things I actually said, and not strawmen. When I say rights I mean human rights.

What I meant is that if you do a search for “Pat Condell,” you get lots of links to his videos talking about how great he is. To be fair to PZ, he did drop him like he was hot once he started supporting UKIP, but he pretty much went from approved to ignored.

Would you actually assume that the anonymous person who made that claim was telling the truth, or think it likely they were just trying to play the victim?

I’d assume the truth, because even though there are assholes who lie on the internet, there are people who tell the truth and talk about things which have happened to them.

I’m not an asspimple who is devoid of empathy. Why on earth would you be proud of being an asspimple who is devoid of empathy? Why do you find it a noble thing to defend asspimples who threaten rape? Why are you proud of taking the chance of triggering a victim of a violent crime? Cynicism doesn’t cover that, I’m afraid.

You didn’t respond to me earlier when I mentioned my dealing with PTSD. Is that because you wrote me off as a liar or because you don’t have the capacity to deal with actual people who have had experiences you don’t wish to acknowledge?

What I meant is that if you do a search for “Pat Condell,” you get lots of links to his videos talking about how great he is.

And a month from now theamazingatheist channel will have an additional 50k subscribers, will still be getting 100k+ views on his video, 90%+ thumbs up, and most people on youtube (except for some feminists) talking about how great he is.

Liberals like to say we should listen to women, but Concerned Women for America has way more members than NOW. They only want us to listen to the women they tell us to. Is that better?

Srsly?

I’m not even entirely sure what you mean by “liberals” or why you think I should speak for “liberals” in responding to you. I hadn’t even heard of CWA before now. It’s not entirely clear what you mean by “listen” to women here.

Based on a quick glance at CWA’s “core issues” page I’d say that regardless of how many members they claim to have they’re advocating for law based on Christian principles. I don’t even have to consider feminism in isolation, I can see prima facie that this is a deeply illiberal organization in the traditional sense — that is, anti-freedom, anti-equality, and anti-democracy.

I’ll listen to anyone (ie not just women) advocating for freedom, equality, and democracy though.

Better than mikepaps? Yeah, but just because he’s so fucking repetitive. “Oppression! Oppression!” Can’t say you seem much smarter than he does though.

I didn’t mean a general Google search. I meant this. Lots of people liked Pat Condell. There was a post or two about how he was a right-wing nutjob, then he mostly got ignored. If the two of the biggest faces of atheism on the Internet are a raging misogynist and a borderline white nationalist and you ignore it, at best you lose the right to complain about Christian who don’t put up more of a fuss about Westboro.

We weren’t talking about Pharyngula, or any specific site, we were talking about the internet, or the street, and I never mentioned first amendment rights to anything. Please respond to things I actually said, and not strawmen. When I say rights I mean human rights.

Oh sure. Start your own blog and you can say (nearly) any of the vile crap that bounces around that empty skull of yours*. But once you start playing in someone else’s sandbox, it’s their rules.

You also don’t have free speech rights on the street, sorry. Let’s say that you really dislike African Americans, just as a shits-and-giggles example. Now come on up to New York, start a fight with some black dudes and make sure to call them “niggers” in the process. Guess who’s going to be charged with a hate crime? Oh and by-the-by, committing a hate crime will earn you a longer sentence than an assault will.

OMG! New York State totally wants to stifle your speech! That is actually more of a violation of your “free speech” than feminists telling you that rape jokes are hurtful and that you need to shut the hell up.

And you may be the only goddamn person that doesn’t connect free speech with 1st Amendment rights. If you are an American (of not, you can totes ignore this question), do you actually know what grants you “free speech” (a term you’ve actually used)?

If the two of the biggest faces of atheism on the Internet are a raging misogynist and a borderline white nationalist and you ignore it, at best you lose the right to complain about Christian who don’t put up more of a fuss about Westboro.

I should add “or about ‘good’ MRAs who don’t call out people like TJ.”

People are, lackwit. You’re the one who nattered on and on and on about free speech, you’re the one who is acting like the U.S. is the whole planet, you’re the one saying it’s up to everyone else on the planet to avoid threats (therefor removing any onus on the threat-maker) and when these absurd arguments were demolished, you then shifted to everyone on the net is a liar playing the victim card and when that didn’t work, you’re now making a vague claim of human rights.

There was a post or two about how he was a right-wing nutjob, then he mostly got ignored.

What do you expect?

While PZ does an exellent job of bashing diverse assholes in sorely need of a bashing – the name of the blog is not “asshole daily”. Deraling asshole-bashing treads with complaints that asshole-bashing isn’t being good enough is not the way to go if you want better asshole-bashing.

Especially when it’s not the asshole-modality that’s currently being bashed.

Why on earth would you be proud of being an asspimple who is devoid of empathy? Why do you find it a noble thing to defend asspimples who threaten rape?

I have empathy for people who I know for a fact are deserving of it. I also never defended what TAA said, in fact I specifically said his comments were stupid, tasteless, and that I don’t approve of the them. That being said the comments he made in anger in the middle of the night in no way reflect the opinions he’s expressed in his video’s. In my opinion he is a feminist, but would never call himself one because he doesn’t like the term.

If the two of the biggest faces of atheism on the Internet are a raging misogynist and a borderline white nationalist

Until today I had never heard of TAA. I watched Pat Condell’s videos until he decided to drop being an atheist in favor of being a right-wing Islamaphobe. I still watch AronRa (who has one of the most pleasant voices I’ve ever heard) and NonStampCollector and a few others. But if TAA is one of the “biggest faces” in internet atheism then he’s hiding it well.

If someone is going to be “triggered” by insults, or impotent threats on the internet they need to get the fuck off the internet.

Brilliant. Given that 1 in 5 American women will experience rape or attempted rape during her lifetime, that’s whittled the presence women down to the internet by a whopping 20%. Take it a step further and state that people who vocally object to sexist and racist epithets shouldn’t be on the internet either, and you’re well on your way to ensuring that the entire internet is a white male-only zone. Insist that nobody who prefers that people not use “fag” as an insult either should get off the internet, and it’ll be a white straight male only club.

There are a lot of things a lot of people think people shouldn’t say on the internet. All we can do is hope is people like you don’t actually have any control over what people say. OH, and I’m not implying you would control what people would say if you could. I’m talking about those who would.

Do we look like Congress to you, fuckwit? Because regardless of whether people want to “control” what other people say (which is so different and totally less controlling than telling people to get off the internet!), people vocally insisting on certain standards of behavior in the interest of making the internet a more welcoming place to folks who aren’t in the straight white male club is not censorship. It’s free speech in action.

Herp a derp, this topic really brought out the idiots. I think whoever it was who hypothesized that these must be the atheists who are always getting beaten in debates by theists was on to something.

Actual empathy doesn’t require assessing another person’s worthiness. If you divide people into those who “deserve” empathy and those who don’t, then I posit that you don’t know what empathy really is.

While PZ does an exellent job of bashing diverse assholes in sorely need of a bashing – the name of the blog is not “asshole daily”. Deraling asshole-bashing treads with complaints that asshole-bashing isn’t being good enough is not the way to go if you want better asshole-bashing.

Especially when it’s not the asshole-modality that’s currently being bashed.

It’s not like established Mark Driscoll was a misogynist once, then dropped it because everybody knew already. His audience isn’t a whole lot bigger.

You’re the one who nattered on and on and on about free speech, you’re the one who is acting like the U.S. is the whole planet

WTF does the U.S. have to do with free speech moron? Do you think the human right to free speech is a privilege that is granted to people? If that were the case it wouldn’t be a right. Rights can only be restricted not granted. IMO, and in the opinion of most freedom loving people, everyone on the planet has certain rights, and among them is the right to free speech.

So how do you determine who’s “deserving” of your empathy? Do you have a calibrated empathy determinator? Do you insult the candidate until they cry? Do you ask your mommy if it’s all right for you to emphasize with somebody? Or do you just pull your empathy out of your ass (sliding it past your head on the way out)?

In my opinion he is a feminist, but would never call himself one because he doesn’t like the term.

I am almost speechless. A feminist wouldn’t even think to make rape threats. A decent human being wouldn’t think to make rape threats. Or even rape jokes. Nope. It wouldn’t occur to them because they in no way think rape is funny or acceptable.

TAA obviously does think and feel that it’s perfectly acceptable to repeatedly threaten rape and to joke around about it. That is not a decent person, and it certainly doesn’t describe a feminist.

Until today I had never heard of TAA. I watched Pat Condell’s videos until he decided to drop being an atheist in favor of being a right-wing Islamaphobe. I still watch AronRa (who has one of the most pleasant voices I’ve ever heard) and NonStampCollector and a few others. But if TAA is one of the “biggest faces” in internet atheism then he’s hiding it well.

Pat Condell total views, 38 million
TheAmazingAtheist total views: 95 million (over 100 once you count his other channels)
AronRa toal views: 7.5 million
NonStampCollector: 6.4 million

I see, so other human beings have to earn the right to be treated with respect and empathy.

Also, you don’t get to dismiss hateful speech because it was said when someone was upset. We don’t treat physical attacks as excusable because the attacker is upset or angry, so why would this be an excuse for verbal assault?

This may come as a surprise since you seem to have a hard time identifying with human beings, but the things that people fall back on when they’re upset tend to reflect what they really feel. So when we see speech like this, we can pretty safely say that no, this person doesn’t agree with feminism, and has internalized lots of sexist garbage.

No, but it requires, as I said, actual knowledge as to the truth of the claim. If you tell me your cat was hit by a car it doesn’t matter whether I like cats, or think it’s stupid for someone to get upset because their cat dies, I would feel bad for you, but it does require me to believe you aren’t lying out your ass, and looking for sympathy when you claim it happened.

That being said the comments he made in anger in the middle of the night in no way reflect the opinions he’s expressed in his video’s.

If you can only behave like a decent goddamn human being when you’re not angry, you are probably not a decent goddamn human being.
It’s like having an army that’s highly disciplined, except when there’s shooting and stuff. Fucking useless.

I have empathy for people who I know for a fact are deserving of it.

And the other seven billion? Yeah, fuck them.
Funny, empathy is pretty much my default position. But I was always weak and soft like that.

IMO, and in the opinion of most freedom loving people, everyone on the planet has certain rights, and among them is the right to free speech.

So, in your world, “shut up or I’ll rape you” doesn’t threaten anyone’s right to free speech? Please explain. Use an extra sheet of paper if necessary.

No, but it requires, as I said, actual knowledge as to the truth of the claim.

Actually, no. When it comes with little or no cost to you or others it’s certainly premissable to employ empathy on the mere possibility that this is true. In fact, I would claim it’s pretty close to mandatory for non-assholes. When actions have substantial costs it’s certainly premissable to demand a certain amount of evidence, but this must allways be in proportion to the cost.

The cost of not making rape threats (or horrible death in fires scenarios) is pretty darn close to zero.

I also never defended what TAA said, in fact I specifically said his comments were stupid, tasteless, and that I don’t approve of the them.

Excellent! And, since nobody here said he doesn’t have the right to say what he said, just that he’s a douchecanoe for saying them, we can move on and…

That being said the comments he made in anger in the middle of the night in no way reflect the opinions he’s expressed in his video’s.(sic)

Oh, for fuck’s sake. So, what he’s expressed in his videos is somehow supposed to trump what he expresses real-time and unedited? Are you fucking kidding me?

Someone can go on claiming whatever the fuck they want, but the instant they express something to the contrary, they’d best be ready to reconcile the incongruency. And this is a pretty big, long-form incongruency.

Whatever he may have claimed before, he’s jumped the shark with this. There is no excuse for taunting a rape victim. There is no excuse for his misogynistic statements. Whatever his edited views might be, he has revealed himself as a grade-A misogynistic asshole on this.

He’s got a hell of a hole to dig himself out of.

And your defense of him is terrible. IF anyone here had actually called for censorship, I might understand your rant. But really, you’re just whining about free speech because we exercised our free speech in calling him out as a misogynistic asshole.

everyone on the planet has certain rights, and among them is the right to free speech.

That’s a sweet thought and all, however, not everyone on the planet has certain rights. As for free speech, some places have it and some don’t. Free speech is not without limits, which is something you seem to have a very hard time grokking. In particular, one is not free to utter threats without repercussions.

You also seem to think it’s all one-sided. People who think you are an asspimple devoid of critical thinking skills and empathy are simply exercising their right to express their opinion. If you don’t like it, you can take your own advice and leave.